Read the full judgment text of CACV 201/1999 on BabelCite. This Court of Appeal judgment was delivered on 28 March 2000 before Leong JA, Wong JA, Woo JA.
Civil law – defamation – libel – newspaper article – whether trial judge's summing-up on damages biased – whether nominal damages award should be set aside – indemnity costs – whether 6th defendant improperly joined to proceedings – whether 1st plaintiff properly struck out for duplication of proceedings. On 9 September 1995, the Oriental Daily News published an article suggesting that the 2nd plaintiff, Hong Kong Washington Company, was a defunct company and that a land sale scheme in Iowa involving minute lots advertised as visited by extra-terrestrial beings was deceptive. The 4th and 5th defendants had visited the advertised Tuen Mun address and found the company did not exist. The 6th defendant, a reporter for East Week Magazine (a subsidiary of the 1st defendant), interviewed Dr Ki the night before publication, but the 3rd defendant's article was already with the printing office. After trial before Deputy Judge To and a jury, the 2nd plaintiff obtained judgment against the 1st to 4th defendants with nominal damages of $1, the 1st plaintiff's claim was struck out for duplication, the 6th defendant was found not liable, and the 6th defendant was awarded costs on an indemnity basis. The plaintiffs appealed. Held, dismissing the appeal: (1) although the trial judge's summing-up on damages bordered on a submission for the defendants rather than a well-balanced summary and could have been more balanced, the judge did not depart from principle; the assessment of damages is peculiarly the province of the jury, and the court will not interfere with an award simply because it is nominal, and the award in another case involving a different article was not relevant. The jury's award of nominal damages was not unreasonable or wrong in principle. (2) On the question of indemnity costs, following Sung Foo Kee Ltd v Pak Lik Co. and the English authorities in Disney v Plummer and Macmillan Inc v Bishopgate Investment Trust Ltd, indemnity costs are not confined to cases of deception or underhand conduct but may be ordered where litigation is conducted unreasonably, as a personal vendetta, or causes costs to be incurred irrationally or out of proportion. The 6th defendant, employed by a separate company with no connection to the article's production or publication, was properly awarded indemnity costs as she was unreasonably joined. (3) The 1st plaintiff's claim was properly struck out as the defamatory article targeted only Hong Kong Washington Company (the 2nd plaintiff), and Dr Ki's personal interest was fully covered by the 2nd plaintiff. (4) The third ground of appeal alleging that the 3rd and 5th defendants and their counsel lied to the court was a question of fact decided by the jury and, in any event, the 5th defendant was never served and did not participate in the trial. Appeal dismissed with order nisi that the costs of the appeal be to the respondents.
Legal issues: Whether the trial judge's summing-up on damages was biased warranting interference with the jury's nominal damages award · Whether the 6th defendant was entitled to costs on an indemnity basis · Whether the 1st plaintiff's claim was properly struck out for duplication of proceedings
Outcome: Appeal dismissed
Cited by 4 cases