Stephen Finley v. Home & Home Properties Ltd and Another

HCA011244B/1996

HCA 11244/1996

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

ACTION NO. 11244 OF 1996

____________

____________

Coram: Hon Chung J in Court

Date of Hearing: 6 March 2003

Date of Ruling: 6 March 2003

_______________________

SECOND RULING

________________________

1.Subsequent to my earlier ruling of 6 March 2003 (among other things) giving leave to the Defendant to further amend his Re-amended Defence to enable him to rely on qualified privilege in relation to the second letter, the Plaintiff asks for an adjournment so as to amend his pleading (which probably is intended to refer to the filing and serving of a Reply to plead malice) and to consider whether further evidence is necessary: reliance is placed on Hong Kong Civil Procedure 2002, para. 20/8/11.

2.Defence counsel opposes the application saying that it is an opportunistic kind of application and that this can only delay the trial of this action.

3.For the reasons given below, I agree with defence counsel:

(1) the present argument of the Plaintiff was not raised yesterday before the ruling was pronounced but only raised afterwards;

(2) particulars of malice on the Defendant's part have earlier been given under para. 14 of the Statement of Claim (which naturally was issued before the Defence was filed) and the particulars of malice set out therein (which cover both the first letter and the second letter) in essence only pleaded an inference of express malice which the pleader contended could be drawn from the circumstances (which are, or should be, undisputed);

(3) the Plaintiff has decided not to pursue his case regarding express malice throughout the trial (and, for that reason, deleted the whole of para. 14 of the Statement of Claim) even though the defence of qualified privilege has always been a live issue (in relation to the first letter).

4.By reason of the above matters, I refuse the Plaintiff's application for an adjournment. For the avoidance of doubt, because the adjournment sought is for the purpose of filing a Reply, it goes without saying that, insofar as there may be a separate application for leave to do so, this is also refused.

Representation:

Plaintiff acts in person and represented by Mr Neil Thomson of counsel

Mr Peter Graham, instructed by Messrs Joseph C T Lee & Co., for the 2nd Defendant