Wong Yue Choi v. Ming Pao Daily News Ltd and Others

Case No.HCA 1046/1969

Court

High Court CFI

Date—

Judge—

Case Document

100%Judiciary

HCA001046/1969

THE SUPREME COURT OF HONG KONG

ORIGINAL JURISDICTION

ACTION NO. 1046 OF 1969

-----------------

BETWEEN
	WONG YUE CHOI	Plaintiff
	and
	MING PAO DAILY NEWS LIMITED	1st Defendant
	CHEUNG CHOK LEUNG	2nd Defendant
	KIN MING PRINTING CO. LTD.	3rd Defendant

-----------------

ACTION NO. 1072 OF 1969

-----------------

BETWEEN
	WONG YUE CHOI	Plaintiff
	and
	CHINESE EVENING NEWS LTD.	1st Defendant
	CHAN SEI CHING	2nd Defendant
	KIN MING PRINTING CO. LTD.	3rd Defendant

-----------------

Coram: B.L. Jones, Assistant Registrar of Supreme Court, in Chambers.

Date of Judgment: 16th day of April, 1970.

-----------------

DECISION

-----------------

1. This is an application by the Defendants that they be granted leave to serve the interrogatories referred for argument by the Order made on the summons for directions dated the 11th March, 1970 upon the Plaintiff. The two actions which have been consolidated claim damages for libel and the defence is one of fair come nt and justification.

2. The interrogatories referred for argument and to which the Plaintiff has objected are 1, 2, 6-13, 15, 16, 21, 22, 27-36 in both actions and 17-20, 40, 45-49 and 53 in O.J. 1072/69. Mr. Sun at the conclusion of Mr. Davies's argument for the Plaintiff did not pursue his application in respect of interrogatories No. 1, 2, 11, 12, 27-31 which are applicable to both actions and Nos. 17-20, 40, 45-49 and 53 which only relate to O.J. 1072/69.

3. The interrogatories outstanding and which are raised in both actions are 6-10, 13, 15, 16, 21, 22 and 32-36. The interrogatories have been requested under Order 26 of the Rules of the Supreme Court.

4. In so far as the present application is concerned the relevant parts of the Order are as follows:-

Order 26 1.(1)

A party to any cause or matter may apply to the Court for an order -

(a)

giving him leave to serve on any other party interrogatories relating to any matter in question between the applicant and that other party in the cause or matter.

Order 26 1.(3)

On the hearing of an application under this rule, the Court shall give leave as to such only of the interrogatories as it considers necessary either for disposing fairly of the cause or matter or for saving costs; and in deciding whether to give leave the Court shall take into account any offer made by the party to be interrogated to give particulars or to make admissions or to produce documents relating to any matter in question.

(4)

A proposed interrogatory which does not relate to such a matter as is mentioned in paragraph (1) shall be disallowed notwithstanding that it might be admissible in oral cross-examination of a witness."

5. Interrogatory 6 "What if any prior notice did he give of his intention to leave Hong Kong aforesaid?" is objected to on the grounds that it is too general that it is not a specific question and cannot really be answered. I consider that the meaning of this question is not clear. It therefore comes within the definition of an oppressive interrogatory and will be disallowed.

6. Interrogatories 7, 8, 9 and 10 which relate to alleged interests by the Plaintiff and his family in Tai Tak Hong Limited are objected to on the grounds that they are matters of public record which should be the subject of a search in the Companies register. I agree with Mr. Davies's argument for the Plaintiff that as the matters in question are of public record no saving of costs will be effected by the delivery of the interrogatories and the defendants should make a search. The same argument applies to interrogatory 15 which relates to a debenture alleged to have been given by Tai Tak Hong Limited. Accordingly, interrogatories 7, 8, 9, 10 and 15 are disallowed.

7. Interrogatory 13 "State the people and/ or companies to whom the Plaintiff owed money prior to leaving Hong Kong in or about early 1969 with the amounts of money that he was indebted to the respective persons or companies?" is objected to in that it is a fishing question and that no specific allegation of indebtedness has been made by the defendants. Where fair comment is pleaded and the defendant has given particulars of the material on which his comments were based, he may interrogate the Plaintiff as to the truth of the matter relied on in the particulars. However, the allegations set out in the defence are not specific and the interrogatories will be disallowed as fishing.

8. Interrogatory 16 arises as a result of interrogatory 15. I agree that this interrogatory is not a matter in question between the parties and, therefore, it is disallowed.

9. Interrogatory 21 "Did the Plaintiff attend gay parties to the early hours of the morning?" I agree with Mr. Davies' argument for the Plaintiff that the answer to this question is a matter of opinion and it is accordingly disallowed. Interrogatory 22 arises as a result of 21 - 22 will be disallowed.

10. Interrogatories 32-36 require the Plaintiff to answer questions relating to bills of sale and I.O.U.s. These matters have not been pleaded by the defendants. They do not relate to any matter in question between the parties in the cause or matter. These interrogatories will therefore be disallowed.

11. The costs of and incidental to the hearing relating to the interrogatories argued before me will be the Plaintiffs in any event.

12. Dated the 16th day of April, 1970.

	(B.L. Jones)
	Assistant Registrar Supreme Court.

Representation: