Read the full judgment text of CACV 000198/1994 on BabelCite. This Court of Appeal judgment was delivered on 20 October 1995 before Nazareth V-P, Liu JA, Mayo JA.
Damages for libel – appeal by defendant against jury's award of HK$2.4 million for professor's complaint that magazine article alleged he 'skipped lessons' and refused to take group photographs with students – plaintiff complained only of last sentence of article – correction published within two weeks; apology some 18 months later – jury trial before Rogers J. Held: (1) Per Nazareth V-P and Mayo JA – intervention by the Court of Appeal on excessive jury damages is now governed by the lower test formulated in Rantzen v Mirror Group Newspapers Ltd [1994] QB 670 at 692, which replaces the former Wednesbury-type test in Broome v Cassell & Co Ltd [1972] AC 1027, the question being whether a reasonable jury could have thought the award necessary to compensate the plaintiff and to re-establish his reputation – the new test gives effect to freedom of expression under Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights and Article 16 of the Hong Kong Bill of Rights, which incorporates Article 19 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. (2) Personal injury damages are irrelevant in the assessment of damages for libel, except (per Mayo JA) in determining whether the libel award is so excessive as to warrant intervention – there is no satisfactory way in which conventional personal injury awards can provide guidance for defamation damages. (3) Per Nazareth V-P and Mayo JA, Liu JA dissenting – in present circumstances in Hong Kong, where defamation actions have almost invariably been tried by judges and jury trials are exceedingly rare, juries in libel actions may be referred to judges' awards of damages for libel as guidance, in view of the divergent development of the common law locally. (4) It is desirable that juries in such actions should be given the direction recommended in Sutcliffe v Pressdram Ltd [1991] 1 QB 153 on the purchasing power of money and the real value of large sums. (5) The damages of HK$2.4 million were well above the general level of awards by judges in libel cases in Hong Kong; the libel was of merely marginal seriousness and was corrected within two weeks – the award was excessive, and a fortiori failed the lower Rantzen test – no reasonable jury could have thought such an award necessary to compensate the plaintiff and re-establish his reputation. (6) The 'Next' magazine article published the evening before counsel's closing speeches, which mentioned precisely the figure of HK$2,400,000 as the plaintiff's litigation expenses, could be received as fresh evidence as an exception to Ladd v Marshall in the interests of justice, and would have supported the conclusion on quantum, though not decisive on its own – the publication of that article could only be regarded in a most serious light and a copy of the judgment and the article was directed to be sent to the Attorney General. Appeal allowed; retrial (re-assessment of damages) ordered; directions and costs to be heard on re-listing.
Legal issues: Test for Court of Appeal intervention on excessive jury awards in libel · Relevance of personal injury awards to assessment of libel damages · Whether juries may be referred to judges' awards of damages for libel in Hong Kong · Whether Sutcliffe-type directions on purchasing power should be given to juries · Whether the jury improperly took account of a rival magazine's article ('Next') published during trial
Outcome: Appeal allowed; jury's award of HK$2.4 million set aside and damages ordered to be re-assessed by the High Court.