Ling Nam Herbalist Koon and Others v. Radio Television Hong Kong

HCA000263/1997

1997, No. A263

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CIVIL JURISDICTION

__________

__________

Coram: Deputy Judge A. Chung in Court

Dates of Hearing: 1, 2, 3 and 4 June 1998

Date of Handing Down Judgment: 22 June 1998

__________________

J U D G M E N T

__________________

(A) Introduction

1. The Plaintiffs are husband and wife. After they came to Hong Kong from China, they operated a baldness treatment centre in the name of "Ling Nam Herbalist Koon" or "Chan Lam Herbalist Koon" since 1990.

2. The Defendant is a government run radio and television broadcasting station. One of the television programmes produced in Chinese by the Defendant was called "Consumer Plan" ("C 計劃" in Chinese). The Consumer Council was described in this programme as its technical consultant. A section of the "Consumer Plan" programme broadcast by the Defendant on 10 December, 1994 from 8:00 to 8:30 p.m. on the ATV Home channel was about the effectiveness of baldness treatment ("the Defendant's Programme").

3. The Plaintiffs complained that the Defendant's Programme made false and derogatory remarks of the Plaintiffs and their baldness treatment business, thereby causing loss to the Plaintiffs' reputation and their business (collectively "the Plaintiffs" unless specifically distinguished).

4. The trial of this action was conducted mainly in Chinese: only the submissions of Defence Counsel were made in English as he had to deal with quite a number of legal issues. To deal with the legal issues raised by Defence Counsel, I consider it better to give my Judgment in English.

(B) Matters Justitiable by the Court

5. During the trial, the Plaintiffs complained about the Defendant's conduct including:-

(a) the contents of the Defendant's Programme itself;

(b) the way in which the Defendant's reporter collected his information and undertook his research in preparation for the Defendant's Programme;

(c) the Defendant's reporter had "conspired" with the Plaintiffs' competitor, alternatively, had assisted this competitor, to advertise this competitor's baldness treatment business in the Defendant's Programme;

(d) the way in which the Defendant supervised the work of its reporter, both before and after the broadcast of the Defendant's Programme;

(e) the Defendant's delay in responding to the Plaintiffs' complaint of this programme after the Defendant's Programme was broadcast;

(f) the way in which the Defendant responded to the Plaintiffs' complaint.

6. A Court of law is not a forum where all kinds of complaint can be lodged and dealt with. The proper task of the Court is to perform its judicial function and to do so within the law and in accordance with legal principles. Thus, for example, a Court is generally not a supervisor of the mass media, whether privately run or government run, unless they are in contravention of the law.

7. For these reasons, it would be inappropriate for this Court to deal with quite a number of the Plaintiffs' complaints raised in the trial such as their complaints about the way in which the Defendant (or its reporter) prepared the Defendant's Programme, or as to how the Defendant handled the Plaintiffs' complaint.

8. What this Court can and should deal with in this action is whether the Defendant, by broadcasting the Defendant's Programme, committed a wrong which is actionable and thereby caused loss to the Plaintiffs or their business. On this basis, I now proceed to deal with the dispute between the parties.

(C) Contents of the Defendant's Programme

9. The Defendant's Programme was a documentary lasting about 23 minutes long. In essence, it was a programme providing various kinds of information of interest to consumers. It was divided into various sections dealing with different subject matters. A summary of the Defendant's Programme is set out below.

10. The part of the Defendant's Programme dealing with the report on the effectiveness of baldness treatment took up about 5 minutes 30 seconds (from about 17:17 min. to about 22:49 min.). From about 21:44 to about 22:03 minutes (a total of about 19 seconds) of the Defendant's Programme, while the advertisements of (a) another centre and (b) that of the Plaintiffs' were shown, the following remarks in Chinese were made:-

"其實唔係間間生髮中心都有效嘅，好似呢間以西葯護理頭髮嘅中心，有四、五個被訪者做過，都話冇效，而且每人都用咗大約二萭蚊。至於呢間中醫館，亦都係被訪者點名話冇效嘅一間，而每星期嘅診金，就要六百蚊。" (see the transcript appearing at p. 93 of tag 20 of the Documents Bundle) (boldness and italics supplied).

This can be translated as:-

"Actually not all centres can provide effective treatment for alopecia. Take this hair treatment centre that employed Western pharmaceuticals as example, four or five interviewees have received its treatment but all of them said the treatment was ineffective despite each of them had spent some $20,000. As regards this Chinese herbalist clinic, it was one of those ineffective ones as revealed by the interviewee(s). The consultation fee was $600 per week.." (see an uncertified translation of this passage at pp. 102-3 of tag 20 of the Documents Bundle) (boldness and italics supplied).

11. The entire section of the Defendant's Programme relating to the report on baldness treatment was severely criticized by the Plaintiffs. The part of the transcript (and English translation) in bold type and italics set out above was the part which (the Plaintiffs argued) referred to the Plaintiffs ("the Remarks") because as and when the reporter made the Remarks, the Plaintiffs' advertisement was shown on the television screen. This part of the Defendant's Programme lasted for about 8 seconds (that is, from about 21:55 to about 22:03 minutes) ("the relevant part" or "the relevant part of the Defendant's Programme").

12. It was agreed between the parties that the portion of the Plaintiffs' advertisement which had been shown in the relevant part of the Defendant's Programme is as indicated in yellow in exhibit "D1". The Plaintiffs' name, address or information relating to the Plaintiff's identity did not appear in this portion. The Plaintiffs testified that their advertisement was unique in having feature of there were 12 photographs located somewhere in the middle of the advertisement in 2 horizontal rows, showing the difference in the hair growth of 6 patients before and after treatment. On the other hand, the Defendant argued that there was nothing unique in the basic concept used in the advertisement and the advertisement shown cannot objectively and reasonably be identified as referrable to the Plaintiffs. The Defendant argued that it was usual to include in a lot of advertisements used by baldness treatment centres a number of photographs showing the claimed difference in the hair growth of the patients before and after treatment. The Defendant produced a number of these advertisements at pp. 105-7 of the Documents Bundle as examples.

13. It must be noted that I only used the phrase "the Plaintiffs' advertisement" for convenience. To use a more accurate phrase, it should be "the advertisement admitted in this trial to have been the Plaintiffs' advertisement".

(D) The Issues Between the Parties

14. Since the Plaintiffs have been acting in person, it would be too much to expect them to expressly state their cause(s) of action in law. Mr. Chow for the Defendant submitted that, assuming that the Plaintiffs' evidence was accepted, the Plaintiffs' claim can be brought under two possible causes of action in defamation and in malicious falsehood, subject to any legally valid defence(s) which may be available to the Defendant. I agree with Mr. Chow's analysis on this point.

15. In relation to the Plaintiffs' claim in defamation, Mr. Chow argued that there were 2 lines of defence on which the Defendant could rely:-

(a) the relevant part of the Defendant's Programme was not referrable to the Plaintiffs or the Plaintiffs' business (collectively "the Plaintiffs" unless specifically distinguished);

(b) in any event, the Remarks and/or the relevant part of the Defendant's Programme did not bear a defamatory meaning.

16. In relation to the Plaintiffs' claim in malicious falsehood, Mr. Chow argued that there were 3 lines of defence:-

(a) the relevant part of the Defendant's Programme was not referrable to the Plaintiffs;

(b) the Plaintiffs had failed to establish that the Remarks were false (the burden of proving this rested with the Plaintiffs in law);

(c) the Plaintiffs had failed to establish that the Defendant acted maliciously (the burden of proving this also rested with the Plaintiffs in law).

Apart from these two causes of action, I considered two other causes of action: one in "conspiracy to injure" and another in "misstatement". These will be discussed in later paragraphs herein.

(E) Credibility of Witnesses

17. In view of the issues raised by the Defence, the credibility of witnesses, at least so far as the Defence witnesses are concerned, is not crucial to the issue of liability. However, I shall set out my findings on credibility both for the sake of completeness and because it is relevant to the issue of quantum (if that needs to be decided):-

(a) the 1st Plaintiff

While I do not find the 1st Plaintiff to be an untruthful witness, I find him to be a person who was subjective and lacked the power to make balanced observations and reasoned judgement.

As example, he decided to complain to the ICAC against the Defendant's reporter for alleged corruption when there was no basis (even up to today) in support. The ICAC's conclusion (after an investigation commencing from about June, 1995 to about December, 1995) that there was no concrete evidence of corruption confirmed this point.

Another example was the 1st Plaintiff's assertion that the Plaintiffs' complaint against the Defendant was found by the then Office of the Commissioner for Administrative Complaints ("OCAC") to have been "substantiated". However, when one looks at the "Final Results Report" of the OCAC (especially at para. 15 and 21), the OCAC considered that there were irregularities and inadequacies in the complaint handling procedure of the Defendant resulting in insufficient attention having been paid to the Plaintiffs' complaint. Their complaint was "substantiated" in that sense only, and not that their complaint was found to have any merits (as the Plaintiffs implicitly suggested (at the 6th paragraph, p. 8 of the Opening "P1". In fact, this assertion was repeated in a more express way at p. 11 (point 2) of the Plaintiffs' written final submissions).

The last example can be found at pp. 12-16 of the Opening "P1" when the question of quantum was dealt with (this was adopted as his testimony). The Plaintiffs claimed that they each suffered a personal loss (including loss of reputation and mental suffering) of $1 million (see p. 11 of "P1"). Further, the Plaintiffs' business has suffered a total loss of $805,822,500 (see p. 11 of "P1"). This was said to be the loss suffered by them for the period from 10 December, 1994 to the date of trial (a period of some 3-1/2 years) (see pp. 12-5 of "P1", especially p. 15 thereof). I consider that the basis of "calculation" and the figures of the "calculation" to be nothing more than pure conjecture and speculation.

I therefore consider that the 1st Plaintiff was not a reliable witness and I do not rely on his testimony.

(b) the 2nd Plaintiff

The 1st Plaintiff adopted what has been stated in "exhibit" "P1" as his testimony. This was also adopted by the 2nd Plaintiff. Further, in cross-examination, she confirmed that she would adopt the 1st Plaintiffs' answers given in his oral testimony.

The testimony of the 2 Plaintiffs was therefore essentially the same.

I have come to the same conclusion as regards the reliability of the 2nd Plaintiff's testimony. For the reasons given earlier, I do not consider that she was a reliable witness.

(c) the reporter, Mr. Mak Ming Tat ("the Reporter)

I also do not find the Reporter to be a reliable witness although I do not find him untruthful. He has been demonstrated by cross-examination to have contradicted himself between his testimony and his witness statement over a number of points.

These points included, for example, whether he had telephoned the 1st Plaintiff when he was researching into the topic in preparation of the Defendant's Programme (as stated in his witness statement) or whether he telephoned the 2nd Plaintiff for that purpose (as he testified); when the Reporter went to the Plaintiffs' clinic posing as a patient, whether the Plaintiffs asked for $600 from him right after he entered, and that the 1st Plaintiff exhibited a bad and casual attitude towards the patient (as he testified) or $600 was collected after diagnosis and prescription were given (as stated in the witness statement).

For the avoidance of doubt, although I do not find the Reporter to be a reliable witness, I do not find that he colluded with the Plaintiffs' competitor (whether corruptly or not), nor do I find that he acted maliciously, at the material time.

(d) the executive producer, Mr. Ngai Kwok Wai, Willy

This witness' testimony was in fact not relevant to the issues of this action. His role in relation to the Defendant's Programme was that he was its executive producer whose duties included supervising the work of the Reporter. I find that he was an honest and reliable witness.

(e) Mr. Mak Sai Leung, Edwin, the officer dealing with the Plaintiffs' complaint

This witness' testimony was also not relevant to the issues of this action. His role in this matter was that he was the officer who handled the Plaintiffs' complaint lodged over a year after the Defendant's Programme was broadcast. I also find that he was an honest and reliable witness.

(F) Cause of Action in Defamation

18. Although this was not a cause of action expressly referred to in the Statement of Claim, Mr. Chow fairly accepted that from the facts set out therein, defamation must have been a cause of action contemplated by the Plaintiffs.

19. In the leading textbook on the subject, Gatley on Libel and Slander (1998) 9th ed., a working definition of defamation was given: "Defamation is committed when the defendant publishes to a third person words or matter containing an untrue imputation against the reputation of the plaintiff.": see para. 1.3 thereof. Two phrases of this definition were underlined and italicized because these were the two defences put forward by the Defendant. They will be dealt with further below.

(F1) Reference to the Plaintiffs

20. To succeed in an action of defamation a plaintiff must prove, among other things, that he was the person defamed. If the words complained of named the plaintiff, there is usually no problem with proving that element. If the plaintiff is not expressly referred to (for example, by name), it is a question of whether the words might be understood by reasonable people to refer to the plaintiff: Gatley, para. 7.1. If it is asserted that people with special knowledge would be able to identify the plaintiff from the words published, the question is answered by reference to what reasonable people possessing that knowledge would have understood them to refer to: Gatley, para. 7.1, text to n. 5. As regards the last point, it is a question of degree how far evidence will be needed to connect the plaintiff with the libel: Gatley, para. 7.3, text to nn. 27, 29 and 30 and para. 32.16.

21. As can be seen under the heading "Contents of the Defendant's Programme", the relevant part of the Defendant's Programme lasted for about 8 seconds. The Plaintiffs contended that even so, this advertisement was clearly referrable to the Plaintiffs because of the unique feature in their advertisement: there were 12 photographs laid out in 2 horizontal lines and they showed how the top of 6 patients' heads looked like before and after treatment was given. The Plaintiffs said that they had placed such an advertisement with many newspapers and magazines continuously for a long time before the Defendant's Programme was broadcast. As a result, many people must have seen it and would be able to identify it as related to the Plaintiffs when they saw this advertisement.

22. Mr. Chow argued that the relevant part was not referrable to the Plaintiffs even if their advertisement had been published as extensively as claimed because:-

(a) the basic concept of the Plaintiffs' advertisement was no different from that of many other baldness treatment centres: they all included photographs of the top of peoples' heads showing the alleged result of the treatment by depicting the alleged increase in hair growth;

(b) the Plaintiffs' advertisement was shown for a total of about 8 seconds only;

(c) the Plaintiffs' advertisement shown in the relevant part did not show any words or pictures expressly indicating that it was the Plaintiffs';

(d) the Plaintiffs' advertisement was shown without advanced notice and would not be something expected by the viewers.

23. Having examined the tape recording of the Defendant's Programme, and pp. 105-7 of the Documents Bundle (which were copies of advertisements of other baldness treatment centres), I agree with Mr. Chow. Further to the points he raised, I also notice that although the Plaintiffs' advertisement was shown for about 8 seconds, these 8 seconds were broken into two different shots. The second shot was a close up shot of a narration in Chinese which the Plaintiffs did not assert contained any identifying feature. Only the first shot lasting about 5 seconds showed the Plaintiffs' advertisement which included the alleged unique and identifying feature. It must be noted, however, the shot actually showing this so-called unique feature lasted less than the full 5 seconds.

24. I came to the aforesaid conclusion as to what a reasonable viewer of the Defendant's Programme would think. I have also considered the question of whether the Plaintiffs needed to adduce direct evidence from witnesses who can be regarded as reasonable viewers who have special knowledge of the Plaintiffs' advertisement. I agree with Mr. Chow that in the context of this case, this is a matter on which evidence was required and the Plaintiffs have failed to adduce any such direct evidence. I also do not find that the Plaintiffs had discharged the burden of proof on this point having considered the totality of the evidence adduced in the trial.

25. The Plaintiffs in their final submissions mentioned that the witnesses called by the Defence admitted in their testimony that the advertisement shown in the relevant part was the Plaintiffs' advertisement. The Plaintiffs argued that therefore the issue of whether or not the Remarks were referrable to them was beyond argument. The Plaintiffs have missed the point. The issue of identification must be determined by reference to the alleged defamatory material, that is, the Defendant's Programme. The Defendant was not sued for defaming the Plaintiffs in the course of the trial, but for publishing the defamatory material in the Defendant's Programme.

26. For these reasons, I find in favour of the Defendant on this point. The Plaintiffs' claim is therefore dismissed on this point alone because liability has not been established.

(F2) Defamatory Meaning

27. Mr. Chow for the Defendant further argued that if I were against him on the first defence, his second defence would be that the words complained of were not defamatory. As I said earlier, I already found in favour of the Defendant and there is therefore strictly speaking no need to decide on this point. I shall however deal with it for the sake of completeness, assuming that I am in favour of the Plaintiffs on the first defence.

28. The relevant passages of his written final submissions on this point stated that:-

"To be actionable, words must impute to the plaintiff some quality which would be detrimental, or the absence of some quality which is detrimental, to the successful carrying on of his ... profession or trade. The mere fact that the words tend to injure the plaintiff in the way of his ... profession or trade is insufficient. If they do not involve any reflection upon the personal character, or ... professional or trading reputation of the plaintiff, they are not defamatory": see Gatley, para. 2.26;

The onus is on the plaintiffs to show that the words conveyed "a personal imputation upon them, either upon their character, or upon the mode in which their business is carried on": Griffiths v. Benn (1911) 27 TLR 346, 350;

"It would be necessary to alleged carelessness or incompetence on the part of the [plaintiffs], that is, to be actionable there must be a publication of material which is disparaging to the reputation of the persons concerned. Their reputation must be injured by the calling in question of their character or their actions": Dawson Bloodstock Agency v. Mirror Newspapers [1979] 1 NSWLR 16, 18C-D.

In the present case, the words complained of imputed that the treatment provided by P was ineffective. Whilst the words might be detrimental to their business, they in no way reflected badly upon Ps' character, reputation or competence, because there could be all sorts of reasons why their treatment was ineffective, or why particular interviewees found that Ps' treatment was ineffective." (see para. 11 and 12 of the Defendant's final submissions).

29. With respect to Mr. Chow, I do not agree with his submissions on this point. If we only consider the statement in the relevant part of the Defendant's Programme which reads: "As regards this Chinese herbalist clinic, it was one of those ineffective ones as revealed by the interviewee(s).", there may be some substance in Mr. Chow's point. However, the true meaning of a passage must be ascertained having regard to the context in which it was made. The relevant part was only part of the Remarks (as defined earlier). The Remark began by the following comment: "Actually not all centres can provide effective treatment for alopecia.". Another way of saying the same thing would be: "Some centres cannot provide effective treatment for alopecia.". The Remarks (which as stated earlier is assumed under this Part to refer to the Plaintiffs) were made as an example to support the said opening comment.

30. It is a matter of fact as to whether a person's ability or competence is called into question when it is asserted that his treatment is ineffective. If one patient makes this complaint, it may be that there were reasons peculiar to the patient making the treatment ineffective. The competence of the person giving the treatment therefore may not be involved. However, if the assertion is that this person's treatment is generally ineffective, a reasonable man would conclude that the ineffectiveness is related to his incompetence, that is, his lack of professional experience, skill and/or knowledge.

31. Having regard to the whole of the Remarks, I consider that the relevant part of the Defendant's Programme bore a defamatory meaning because considered in context, it called in question the competence of the Plaintiffs..

(G) Cause of Action in Malicious Falsehood

32. This cause of action was expressly referred to in the Statement of Claim. As stated above, Mr. Chow argued that the Plaintiffs also failed in establishing this cause of action because of the 3 points of defence raised by the Defence. I shall deal with these points below.

(G1) Reference to the Plaintiffs

33. My finding on the same issue has already been set out under heading "(F1) Reference to the Plaintiffs" above. For the same reasons set out therein, I reached the same conclusion that the Plaintiffs have failed to prove that the words complained of referred to them.

(G2) Falsity of the Words Published

34. The burden of proving that the words were false rests with the Plaintiffs: see Gatley, para. 20.6. As I have already concluded that the testimony of both Plaintiffs cannot be relied upon, this element has not been proven by the Plaintiffs.

(G3) Malice

35. Since I already found against the Plaintiffs on the earlier 2 points above, the question of whether the Defendant or its reporter or producer acted with malice is irrelevant. The test for deciding this point has been set out in Gatley, para. 20.7 and 20.8. If it were necessary to make a finding on this point, I find that the Defendant did not act maliciously.

(H) Other Possible Causes of Action

36. Since the Plaintiffs were acting in person, I have considered whether or not there were other possible causes of action relevant to their claim. I find that the other possible causes of action are one in "conspiracy to injure" and another in "misstatement". I raised these points with Mr. Chow and he dealt with them in a fair and competent manner. I shall set out these points further below.

(H1) Conspiracy to Injure

37. Mr. Chow submitted that there are 2 types of conspiracy to injure: a conspiracy to injure by way of an unlawful act and a conspiracy with intent to injure (although no unlawful act is involved). He submitted that if I find in his client's favour on the points of defence he raised, there is no evidence of (1) any conspiracy, (2) any unlawful act (whether civil or criminal in nature), or (3) any intent to injure. I agree with Mr. Chow on these submissions and find that this possible cause of action has not been established.

(H2) Misstatement / Misrepresentation

38. Mr. Chow submitted that a cause of action in misstatement or misrepresentation can only be brought successfully by a recipient of the statement, that this recipient relied on the statement or representation in question, and that he suffered loss as a result. Although the Plaintiffs may argue that they were two of the recipients, they clearly did not rely on the "misstatement" or "misrepresentation". Further, whatever loss the Plaintiffs might allege to have been suffered by them did not result from their reliance either. I also agree with Mr. Chow on these submissions.

(I) Quantum of Damages

39. Since I already found against the Plaintiffs on liability, I do not need to consider the question of quantum. However, if it were necessary for me to do so, I certainly do not consider that the quantum suffered by them to be anywhere near the sums they claimed.

40. As regards general damages suffered, taking into account the extremely short duration of the publication, (assuming that there were viewers who were able to identify the advertisement as related to the Plaintiffs) the number of such viewers must have been extremely limited. There was also no aggravating features in this case, for example, the Defendant was acting spitefully. For these reasons, I consider that the generally damages would have been in the range of $5,000 to $10,000.

41. There is no reliable evidence on any special damages having been suffered by the Plaintiffs. No award will therefore be made for this head of claim.

(J) Other Matters

42. I have stated earlier that the Courts are generally not a supervisor of the mass media. However, I feel compelled to say a few words about some matters disclosed by the testimony given by the defence witnesses.

43. As I understand from their testimony, the Defendant's Programme was intended to provide consumers with information on the provision of goods or services. It was produced by the Defendant which was a government run broadcasting station. The technical consultant of the Defendant's Programme was described to be the Consumer Council. Any uninformed viewer of the Defendant's Programme would naturally consider that the statements made and conclusions reached in the Defendant's Programme were well-researched into, true and accurate and carry much authority.

44. The testimony of the defence witnesses showed that the section of the Defendant's Programme on the effectiveness of baldness treatment was based entirely on statements made by "patients" when they were interviewed by the Reporter. The Plaintiffs, quite rightly in my view, pointed out that there were easy ways of verifying these statements, for example, the Reporter could have asked for objective proof like photographs taken of the patients before, during and after treatment to ascertain whether the claimed improvement in hair growth was true.

45. I can appreciate that if there was urgency in the matter, for example, if it were the broadcast of a news item, then it may not be feasible to carry out verification work. However, the section on baldness treatment was said to have been conceived since about August or October, 1994 (some 2 or 4 months before the Defendant's Programme). Further, this was a programme which would probably assist or impede the businesses of people who were referred to therein; commercial interest was therefore involved. Much more care should have been taken in ensuring the truth and accuracy of the broadcast materials than has been disclosed in the testimony. Alternatively, a clear qualifying statement ought have been made informing the viewers that there had been no scientific verification of the claims.

46. Further, I fail to understand why the Reporter did not provide the Plaintiffs with a chance of commenting on the adverse remarks of the interviewee(s) on the effectiveness of their treatment. The reason given by the Reporter was that he had earlier called the Plaintiffs and they declined to be interviewed "for fear of adverse effect on their business". That refusal of an interview was made before the "patient's" adverse remarks were made. If that was the reason for the Plaintiffs' refusal, there was all the more reason for the Reporter to inform the Plaintiffs about the adverse remarks to see if they would change their mind about the invitation to be interviewed.

47. Having made these observations, I must say that they are not relevant to the issues in this action. They also do not warrant the Plaintiffs to make a claim totalling some $807.8 million against the Defendant.

(K) Conclusion

48. To sum up, the Plaintiffs' claim is dismissed.

(L) Costs Order Nisi

49. There is no apparent reason why a costs order nisi should not be made pursuant to R.H.C. Ord. 42 r. 5B(6). Further, there is no reason why costs should not follow the event. The costs of this action are therefore to be paid by the Plaintiffs to the Defendant to be taxed if not agreed.

50. Since the Plaintiffs are acting in person, I think it is better if I mention that pursuant to Ord. 42 r. 5B(6), they may apply within 14 days after this decision is pronounced to vary the costs order nisi, failing which it will become absolute.

Representation:

Plaintiffs in person

Mr. Anderson Chow i/s by Department of Justice for the Defendant