Your World of Legal Intelligence
 Hong Kong | 1-800-335-6202

Chung Ming Yu And Others v Next Magazine Publishing Ltd And Another

Judgment Cited authorities 4 Cited in Precedent Map Related
Vincent
Judgment Date15 October 2014
Subject MatterCivil Action
Judgement NumberHCA785/2011
CourtHigh Court (Hong Kong)
HCA785/2011 CHUNG MING YU AND OTHERS v. NEXT MAGAZINE PUBLISHING LTD AND ANOTHER

HCA 785/2011

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

HIGH COURT ACTION NO 785 OF 2011

____________

BETWEEN

CHUNG MING YU ( 鍾明宇) 1st Plaintiff
YUEN OI KING ( 袁愛琼) 2nd Plaintiff
WONG CHUN HEI ( 黃浚希) 3rd Plaintiff
LAU, YUEN MEI AMI ( 黎婉薇) 4th Plaintiff
HEUNG YIU KAU ( 香耀球) 5th Plaintiff
WONG YUK LAM ( 黃玉琳)
 6th Plaintiff
PAK SUNG HIM TERRY ( 白崇謙) 7th Plaintiff
WONG JI LAM ( 黄梓琳)
 8th Plaintiff
WONG CHI HUNG ( 黃志雄)
 9th Plaintiff
HO KA LEE ( 何嘉莉)
 10th Plaintiff
LAU MA N HON (劉文翰)
 11th Plaintiff
YIM PUI HA ( 嚴珮霞)
 12th Plaintiff
and
NEXT MAGAZINE PUBLISHING LIMITED
(壹週刊出版有限公司) 		1st Defendant
LEE CHI HO (李志豪) 2nd Defendant

____________

Before: Deputy High Court Judge Marlene Ng in Chambers
Date of Hearing: 27 August 2014
Date of Decision: 27 August 2014
Date of Handing Down Reasons for Decision: 15 October 2014

______________________________

REASONS FOR DECISION

______________________________

I. INTRODUCTION

1. The trial of the present action was scheduled to commence on 8 October 2014 with 14 days reserved. As a result of various late applications on the part of the 1st and 2nd defendants (“D1” and “D2”, collectively “Ds”) and my decision on those applications at the adjourned hearing for argument on 27 August 2014 (“Hearing”) (which was also the return date of the 2nd Pre-trial Review (“PTR”)), I vacated the trial dates and reserved my reasons of decision on the Ds’ applications which I now give. The 1st to 12th plaintiffs (“P1” to “P12”, collectively “Ps”) made some minor applications, and I shall also deal with them below.

2. The Ps claimed that (a) P1/P2, P3/P4, P5/P6, P7/P8, P9/P10, and P11/P12 were respectively married couples, and P3 to P8 were relatives, (b) they were all members of the Lord Jesus Christ Church (“Church”), (c) P9, P10, P11 and P12 were tenants sharing premises at San Tau Kok Village, Tai Po (“1st Premises”), (d) P3 and P4 were occupants of premises in Fu Tin Estate, Tai Po (“2nd Premises”), and (e) the Ps were close acquaintances who used to have bible studies at the 1st Premises and friendly gatherings at the 2nd Premises.

3. The present action began life on 6 May 2011 when the Ps sued D1 and D2 respectively as printer/publisher[1] and editor-in-chief of the Next Magazine (“Magazine”) for libel in respect of an article they published in the 1088th issue of the Magazine on 13 January 2011 (“Article”). The Article was a cover story titled “換妻邪教” with text (“Words”) and photographs (“Photos”) on the cover, contents and inside pages that the Ps claimed were defamatory of them in their natural and ordinary sense.

4. The Ds denied the Ps’ claim, and put forward various defences, including justification and fair comment.

5. To put the matter in context, I shall first set out below a brief procedural history of the present action, and then I shall go on to describe the summonses placed before me.

II. PROCEDURAL HISTORY

6. The Statement of Claim (“SoC”) was endorsed on the Writ of Summons issued on 6 May 2011. On 15 July 2011, the Ds filed their Defence. On 24 September 2011, the Ps filed their Reply.

7. On 17 January 2012, the Ds filed their timetabling questionnaire confirming (a) they did not intend to amend their pleadings, (b) they intended to file/serve a List of Documents within 28 days, and (c) there would be five witnesses for the Ds at trial (ie D2, Tse Chi Ting Stephen (“Tse”), Lui Ka Hung (“Lui”), To Sin Ling (“To”) and Ngai Kam Wah “Ngai”).

8. At the hearing of the case management summons on 13 February 2012, Master KK Pang granted case management directions including timetabling directions for discovery, inspection and/or witness statements. The parties were also directed to obtain counsel’s advice, and to take out interlocutory applications, if any, within 28 days thereafter.

9. On 16 August 2012, the Ds filed their List of Documents that made discovery and disclosed inter alia a bundle of emails between the Ps and Ngai (“Discovered Emails”).

10. On 3 October 2012, the Ds filed their listing questionnaire confirming that discovery had completed, but exchange of witness statements had not taken place as yet.

11. At the case management conference (“CMC”) on 10 October 2012, Registrar KW Lung inter alia extended time for exchange of witness statements to 7 December 2012, and directed all interlocutory applications be taken out within 14 days thereafter. Subsequently in December 2012, the Ds exchanged witness statements as to fact with the Ps.

12. The Ps served 15 statements altogether, most of which were from the Ps themselves. The Ds served four witness statements, three from D1’s employees Lee, To and D2, and one from Ngai. Ngai’s witness statement appeared to be a brief pre-printed pro forma statement that merely confirmed “[the Article]內所述有關本人在真理天城教親身參與的事項或引述本人所提及的事宜, 均屬真實無誤”.

13. On 19 February 2013, the Ds filed their listing questionnaire confirming (a) their pleadings were in order and required no amendment, (b) discovery had completed, and (c) all witness statements of Lee, To, D2 and Ngai had been served.

14. At the CMC on 27 February 2013, Registrar KW Lung granted leave for the Ps (a) to serve additional witness statements by P9, P10 and Tsui Wai Kuen (“Tsui”) with liberty for the Ds to serve additional/supplemental witness statements in reply within 42 days, and (b) to set the present action down for trial within 42 days as from 10 April 2013 before a bilingual judge with a PTR before the trial judge 12 weeks before trial (“27/2/13 Order”).

15. The Ds did not serve any witness statement as to fact in reply to the Ps’ three additional witness statements. On 18 April 2013, the Ps applied to set the present action down for trial, and subsequently the trial dates were fixed and confirmed.

16. On 3 June 2014, the Ds’ present solicitors (“Ds’ Solicitors”) filed Notice of Change of Solicitors. The matter came before me for PTR on 30 June 2014 with 30 minutes reserved. At such 1st PTR, I granted case management directions for the parties to agree and/or obtain certified English translation of the Article, to agree the transcript of the audio‑recording of the interview of Ngai by D1’s staff (“Recording”), to collate a bilingual glossary of key words (“Glossary”), to revise the index of the section on documents for the trial bundle in compliance with Practice Direction 5.6, and to revise the index of the section on witness statements for the trial bundle with such witness statements collated in the order of P1 to P12 followed by the statements from additional witnesses for the Ps rather than in chronological date order. I also adjourned the Ds’ 1st, 2nd and 3rd Summonses[2] for argument to be heard together with the 2nd PTR. Subsequently, the hearing of such summonses and the 2nd PTR was scheduled to be heard before me at the Hearing on 27 August 2014.

17. After the 1st PTR, the parties obtained certified English translation of the Article (“Translation”) and agreed the transcript of the Recording (“Transcript”), but there was still disagreement over the Glossary and the index of the trial bundle. I will return to this below.

III. Ps’ SUMMONSES

18. On 19 June 2014, the Ps applied by summons (“Ps’ 1st Summons”) for leave to file/serve the supplemental witness statement of P2 as per the draft attached thereto (“P2 Draft”), and for such supplemental witness statement to stand as P2’s evidence-in-chief.

19. On 19 June 2014, the Ps filed their Supplemental List of Documents (“Ps’ Supp List”) that discovered/disclosed (a) general emails and photographs of Church members, (b) general teaching materials of the Church, (c) emails sent by P1 on behalf of the Church and on his own, (d) emails concerning Henry Pong Hei Yung (“Pong”), (e) emails on “reception of Ernest Frank Mauck” (“Mauck”) and (f) documents on discussion concerning “rapture”.

20. At the 1st PTR, Mr Lam, counsel for the Ps, applied (and I accordingly granted leave) for the Ps to withdraw the Ps’ 1st Summons and Ps’ Supp List with costs to the Ds.

21. On 20 August 2014, the Ps applied by summons (“Ps’ 2nd Summons”) for leave to amend the SoC in the manner marked in red as per the draft annexed thereto (“ASoC Draft”). The purpose of the proposed amendments was to correct clerical errors and to update the quantum of P1’s claim for alleged loss of income pursuant to a recent letter from his school principal dated 19 August 2014 on the matter of his no pay leave (“Principal Letter”).

22. On 20 August 2014, the Ps applied by summons (“Ps’ 3rd Summons”) for leave to file and serve a Supplemental List of Documents as per the draft annexed thereto (“2nd Draft Ps’ Supp List”) to make discovery and disclose the Principal Letter.

23. On 22 August 2014, the Ps applied by summons (“Ps’ 4th Summons”) for leave to replace the 2nd Draft Ps’ Supp List with the revised draft Supplemental List of Documents annexed thereto (“3rd Draft Ps’ Supp List”). The purpose of the 3rd Draft Ps’ Supp List was to make discovery and disclose the Principal Letter and some webpage printouts to illustrate the extent of internet publication caused by the Article (“Printouts”).

24. Mr Lam confirmed that the Ps’ 2nd, 3rd and 4th Summonses were prompted by observations made by this court at the 1st PTR, ie this court raised queries whether there was documentary evidence to support P1’s claim for special damages being loss of income and/or evidence to support the allegations of internet circulation of the Article referred to in paragraphs 11, 25 and 15 of the witness statements of P8, P9 and P12 respectively.

25. I pause here...

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT