ORIENTAL PRESS GROUP LTD. AND OTHERS v. TED THOMAS

ORIENTAL PRESS GROUP LTD. AND OTHERS v. TED THOMAS

Paragraph 8 was struck out because it sought to rely on circulation of a rumour as justification for defamatory statements, which is impermissible; particulars in paragraph 7 that attempt to prove the truth of the rumour were also struck out for the same reason; defendant may apply to amend within a fixed period.

Citation
ORIENTAL PRESS GROUP LTD. AND OTHERS v. TED THOMAS
Parties
1st Plaintiff: Oriental Press Group Ltd.; 2nd Plaintiff: Eastern Express Publisher Ltd.; 3rd Plaintiff: Ma Ching Kwan; Defendant: Ted Thomas
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
21 December 1995
Case Number
HCA5217/1995
Procedural Posture
Defamation / Libel / Interlocutory Strike Out Application (pre Trial)
Outcome
Paragraphs 7 and 8 of the defence struck out in part and in whole respectively; leave to apply to amend granted; costs ordered to plaintiffs (order nisi).
Legal Topics
Fair Comment, Justification, Striking Out Pleadings, Rumour as Justification, Particulars
Source Language
EN
Defamation Civil Procedure Fair Comment Justification Striking Out Pleadings Rumour as Justification Particulars

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 3 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Oriental Press Group Ltd.

1st Plaintiff

Eastern Express Publisher Ltd.

2nd Plaintiff

Ma Ching Kwan

3rd Plaintiff

Ted Thomas

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Defamation / Libel / Interlocutory Strike Out Application (pre Trial)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether a pleaded rumour can constitute justification for defamatory statements
  2. 2 Whether the defence of fair comment was sufficiently pleaded
  3. 3 Whether particulars relying on rumour to prove truth are objectionable

Ratio Decidendi

Paragraph 8 was struck out because it sought to rely on circulation of a rumour as justification for defamatory statements, which is impermissible; particulars in paragraph 7 that attempt to prove the truth of the rumour were also struck out for the same reason; defendant may apply to amend within a fixed period.

Court Disposition

Paragraphs 7 and 8 of the defence struck out in part and in whole respectively; leave to apply to amend granted; costs ordered to plaintiffs (order nisi).

Orders

  • Strike out paragraph 8 of the defence.
  • Strike out sub-paragraphs (21), (22) and (23) of the particulars under paragraph 7.