Next Magazine Publishing Ltd. and Others v. Oriental Daily Publisher Ltd.

Case No.

Court

Date06 Jan 2003

Judge—

Case Document

100%Judiciary

FACV000019A/1999

FACV No. 19 of 1999

IN THE COURT OF FINAL APPEAL OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

FINAL APPEAL NO. 19 OF 1999 (CIVIL)

(ON APPEAL FROM CACV NO. 261 OF 1998)

_____________________

Between :
	NEXT MAGAZINE PUBLISHING LIMITED	1st Appellant
	CHEUNG KIM HUNG	2nd Appellant
	TOPPAN PRINTING CO. (HK) LIMITED	3rd Appellant

	AND

	ORIENTAL DAILY PUBLISHER LIMITED	Respondent

_____________________

Court:

Chief Justice Li, Mr Justice Bokhary PJ, Mr Justice Litton NPJ, Mr Justice Silke NPJ and Sir Anthony Mason NPJ

Date of Determination: 6 January 2003

_____________________________

D E T E R M I N A T I O N

_____________________________

1.This is the determination of the Court.

2.This matter has been referred back to the Court on one issue : Whether interest on costs in the trial court should run from the date of Chung J's judgment (as the defendants contend) or from the date of this Court's judgment (as the plaintiff argues). Chung J's judgment, awarding costs to the defendants, is dated 15 September 1998 whilst this Court's judgment is dated 8 June 2000 : a time gap of 1years. We have entertained written submissions from the parties on the issue.

3.To determine this matter it is necessary to recall how the appeal was resolved in this Court. It was as follows : The Court of Appeal had, on the plaintiff's appeal, allowed the appeal against Chung J's judgment and had ordered a new trial. The defendants' appeal in this Court turned on a narrow point : Did Chung J fail, as the Court of Appeal had concluded, to deal with a vital issue in the course of the trial? This Court held that the Court of Appeal had erred in this regard, and hence Chung J's judgment was restored. Nothing in the course of the appeal hearing suggests that, once this point was resolved in the defendants' favour, the whole of Chung J's judgment should not be restored, including his order for costs. That was the manifest intention of this Court.

4.To implement that manifest intention and to resolve any doubt that might exist we clarify that the order we made at the conclusion of the appeal was that the whole of Chung J's judgment including his order for costs should be restored and we in any event so order. It follows that interest on those costs as assessed would run from 15 September 1998.

5.As to the costs arising out of this determination, each party must bear its own costs.

(Andrew Li)	(Kemal Bokhary)	(Henry Litton)
Chief Justice	Permanent Judge	Non-Permanent Judge

(William Silke)	(Sir Anthony Mason)
Non-Permanent Judge	Non-Permanent Judge

Representation:

Messrs Coudert Brothers for the appellants

Messrs Iu, Lai & Li for the respondent