Leon Spiegel v. Melvyn Bennett

HCA009012/1994

1994, No: A9012.

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF HONG KONG

HIGH COURT

____________

____________

Coram: The Hon. Mr. Justice Findlay, in Chambers.

Date of hearing: 18 October 1994

Date of handing down of judgment: 20 October 1994.

____________

JUDGMENT

____________

1. In this matter the plaintiff seeks leave to make in open court a statement pursuant to Order 82, Rule 5(1) of the Rules of the Supreme Court in term of the statement annexed to the summons.

2. The plaintiff claimed from the defendant damages for libel in respect of a statement contained in the draft or proposed minutes of a meeting of the executive committee of the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals held on 19 October 1993, and also damages for breach of confidence. The action was commenced on 9 September 1994, and the plaintiff filed his statement of claim on 26 September 1994. On the same day, the defendant paid $5000 into court in satisfaction of all the causes of action. On 10 October 1994, the plaintiff accepted this.

3. When this matter came before me on 18 October 1994, only twenty minutes were available for the hearing. This was not adequate to hear full argument. Naturally, Mr Merry and Miss Cresswell were anxious to avoid a further hearing, with the consequent increase in costs. It was agreed that I would do what I could with the limited help they were able to offer me.

4. Broadly, Mr Merry urged that I give leave because the plaintiff was entitled to an opportunity to clear his name. I hope I do no injustice to Miss Cresswell by stating that her argument was that the defendant has made no admission of liability, that alleged libel was not greatly disseminated and the plaintiff is creating a storm in a teacup. She also argues that parts of the draft statement are inaccurate.

5. The libel alleged is not of the most serious, but it is such that it is understandable that the plaintiff should wish it known to those who might be interested that he has been paid a substantial sum, which I find the sum of $5000 to be in the context, in respect of his complaints. Accordingly, in my judgment he should have leave to make a statement.

6. As to the terms of the statement, there is greater difficulty. As I pointed out to Mr Merry and Miss Cresswell, if there were disputes of fact, I could not resolve these without hearing more, and we had insufficient time for this. I have been obliged to do what I can in this respect. I have amended the statement in manuscript and signed it. These are the terms I approve. As to costs, there was no time for argument. It seems to me, however, on the face of it, that the plaintiff is entitled to his costs. Accordingly, I make an order nisi that the costs of this application and making the statement in court be taxed if not agreed and be paid by the defendant to the plaintiff.

Representation:

Mr Malcolm Merry, instructed by Deacons, for the plaintiff.

Miss C. Cresswell of Clyde & Co. for the defendant.