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

Read the full judgment text of CACV 261/1998 on BabelCite. This Court of Appeal judgment was delivered on 5 May 1999.

1. This is an application for leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal. S. 22(1)(a) of the Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal Ordinance is not invoked. For the purposes of this application, Mr Yu, counsel for the applicants, invites this court to pay no regard to paragraph (a) but focus exclusively on s. 22(1)(b).

Appeal by the 1st , 2nd and 3rd Defendants to Court of Final Appeal allowed. Please refer to FACV19/1999 dated 8 June 2000
Case No.CACV 261/1998
Court
Court of Appeal
Date05 May 1999
Judge
Case Document
100%Judiciary

CACV000261/1998

CACV 261/98

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 261 OF 1998

(ON APPEAL FROM HCA NO. 9802 OF 1996)

BETWEEN
ORIENTAL DAILY PUBLISHER LIMITED Plaintiff
(Respondent)
AND
NEXT MAGAZINE PUBLISHING LIMITED 1st Defendant
(1st Applicant)
CHEUNG KIM HUNG 2nd Defendant
(2nd Applicant)
TOPPAN PRINTING CO. (HK) LIMITED 3rd Defendant
(3rd Applicant)

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

Coram: Hon Liu, JA, Hon Leong, JA & Hon Yeung, J in Court

Date of Hearing: 5 May 1999

Date of Judgment: 5 May 1999

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

J U D G M E N T

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

Liu, JA:

1. This is an application for leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal. S. 22(1)(a) of the Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal Ordinance is not invoked. For the purposes of this application, Mr Yu, counsel for the applicants, invites this court to pay no regard to paragraph (a) but focus exclusively on s. 22(1)(b).

2. It is not in dispute that the decision of this court, differently constituted, is essentially a pleading decision. This court is not impressed by the contentions sought to be advanced on topics, such as freedom of the press, general or public interest, special circumstances, linking of the order for re-trial to some questions of great general or public importance. This court cannot agree that this pleading decision given is plainly wrong. It is not further suggested that leave to appeal should be granted otherwise.

3. For these reasons, we cannot accede to the application which is accordingly dismissed.

(Submissions made on costs)

Liu, JA:

4. Costs, not being resisted, be costs to the respondent, payable by the applicants.

5. We order: Application dismissed with costs.

(B Liu) (Arthur Leong) (C K Yeung)
Justice of Appeal of the
Court of Appeal of the
High Court
Justice of Appeal of the
Court of Appeal of the
High Court
Judge of the Court of First Instance of the High Court

Representation:

Mr Cheng Huan, SC & Mr Jason Pow inst'd by M/S Iu, Lai & Li for Plaintiff (Respondent).

Mr Benjamin Yu, SC inst'd by M/S Coudert Brothers for Defendants (Applicants).

Appeal by the 1st , 2nd and 3rd Defendants to Court of Final Appeal allowed. Please refer to FACV19/1999 dated 8 June 2000

Other Judgments in This Case

Further hearings and rulings under CACV 261/1998