Pui Kwan Kay v. Ming Pao Holdings Ltd and Others

HCA 854/2010

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

ACTION NO 854 OF 2010

____________________

______________

J U D G M E N T

______________

A. INTRODUCTION

1.This is a jury trial of a libel action involving the plaintiff (“Mr Pui”) and three defendants, respectively the proprietor, publisher and editor‑in‑chief of Ming Pao Daily, a newspaper widely circulated in Hong Kong.  It relates to an editorial (“the Editorial”) published on Ming Pao on 10 April 2009.

2.Mr Pui is a businessman, who has been closely involved in, among others, the promotion of soccer as a sport in Hong Kong for many years.  He has been, among others, a director and Vice-Chairman of the Hong Kong Football Association (“HKFA”).

3.It is Mr Pui’s claim that the Editorial is defamatory of him.  He has pleaded seven defamatory meanings (collectively, “the plaintiff’s defamatory meanings”) of the Editorial.

4.The defendants deny that the Editorial is defamatory.  Alternatively, they say, if any, the Editorial only carries some lesser defamatory meanings (“the lesser defamatory meanings”), and in relation to these lesser defamatory meanings, the defendants rely on the defences of justification and fair comment.  Lastly, the defendants rely on the defence of qualified privilege against the plaintiff’s defamatory meanings or the lesser defamatory meanings.

5.At the end of the trial, the jury returned the verdicts that (a) the Editorial was defamatory of Mr Pui and bore two of the plaintiff’s defamatory meanings, (b) the defamatory statements were not met by the defences of justification, fair comment or a combination of both, and (c) damages for the defamation should be in the sum of $500,000.

6.Given the above verdicts, what is still left to be decided before a judgment would be entered in favour of Mr Pui is whether the defendants could establish the defence of qualified privilege.  This is a question for this court to decide[1]. In relation to this question, the jury has also returned a number of special verdicts on facts based on the questions put to them, which the court should take into account.  I will refer to these special verdicts later in this judgment.

7.This judgment is therefore only concerned with the defence of qualified privilege, which is also nowadays commonly known as Reynolds privilege[2] or responsible journalism[3].

8.To put the defence of qualifiedprivilege raised in this case in proper context, I should first set out the relevant background.

B.   THE BACKGROUND

9.The Editorial originated from a soccer match (“the Match”) of the 1^st Division League between Tuen Mun Progoal (“Progoal”) and Happy Valley Athletic Association (“Happy Valley”) held on 31 March 2009.

10.What happened at the Match is in gist this: in its first half, Progoal was leading 1:0.  However, at the last seven minutes of the second half time of the Match, Progoal conceded four goals.  At the end Progoal eventually lost 1:5 to Happy Valley.

11.In the second half when Progoal was losing 1:2 to Happy Valley, a Progoal local player, Chow Wai Ming (周偉明), shouted at the pitch that “出聲啦，幾多球呀！換我出場呀。”.

12.After the Match, at late night that night, three other local players of Progoal, Cheung Tin Tak, Siu Leung and Leung Chi Lap, wrote in their personal blogs statements to the effect that:

(1)  The result of the Match was due to four Mainland players of Progoal not trying their best.

(2)  The reason of the four Mainland players’ behaviour was related to the issue of money.

(3)  The conduct of the four Mainland players was unacceptable and despicable.

13.What happened at the Match and the said Progoal’s local players’ outbursts and criticisms had triggered a lot of discussions on the internet and the media, suspecting match-fixing of the game involving some of Progoal’s Mainland players.

14.As a result of the public and widespread concern generated at that time of possible match-fixing, the HKFA held a board meeting on 6 April to discuss the matter.  After the meeting, they further held a press conference at the headquarter.  The press conference was attended by the HKFA’s directors, including their Chairman, and Mr Pui (as Vice‑Chairman) and many journalists.  The press conference was conducted by the Chairman.

15.After the press conference, when Mr Pui was leaving the place, some of the attending journalists went around him to ask him questions.  The questions focused on and were mainly related to who was the “班主”[4] of Progoal, who were the team’s various office bearers, and its source of finances.  The questioning session lasted for about 10 minutes.  I would refer to this session as the “Questioning Session”.

16.Mr Ku, a reporter from Ming Pao, was present at the press conference and the Questioning Session.  On the next day on 7 April, Ming Pao published a news report article written by Mr Ku.  In this article, Mr Pui was reported to have said that he did not know who Progoal’s “班主” was, and he explained that its financial support came from various sources.  However, he believed that those were proper sources but he did not disclose the identity of these sources[5]. I will refer to this article as “Mr Ku’s Report”.

17.At the same time, on the same day (ie, 7 April), there were other newspapers which reported the press conference, and some (but not all) also reported on the Questioning Session.

18.Then, on 9 April 2009, Sing Tao Daily (another local newspaper) published an article of an interview with Mr Pui.  In this article, Mr Pui provided various information as to the setting up of Progoal and the people involved in it.  He also said something more about Progoal’s source of financial support.  I would refer to this report as “the Sing Tao Interview Report”.

19.On the same day, Progoal issued its own report (“the Progoal Report”) about the Match.  The report concluded that there were no sufficient materials to support any match-fixing.  In support of this conclusion, the report contained explanations from those local players who made the outbursts and criticisms as to why they had done so.

20.On 10 April, Ming Pao published the Editorial.

21.The Editorial was written by Mr Ho, who is an experienced and senior journalist responsible only to write editorials.  The Editorial was entitled “The questionable match is shrouded with suspicions.  Death is the fate of soccer if it is allowed to pass through equivocation” [“問題球賽疑點重重 蒙混過關足運必死”].  The content began with a reference to the Match and the Progoal Report and a statement that the Progoal local players’ explanations in the report were contradictory.  It then went on to make (among others) the following statements:

(1)  “Furthermore, in respect of the background and source of funds of Progoal, the Vice-Chairman of the Hong Kong Football Association Ltd [Mr Pui] changed from ‘I don’t know’ to a full disclosure in details within a matter of 3 days.  This makes people feel suspicious about the entire incident.  ICAC should thoroughly investigate so that the truth can be revealed.” [“另外，足總副主席貝鈞奇對於普高的「身世」和資金來源，短短3日之內，由「不知道」到一清二楚地披露，使人覺得整件事甚為蹺蹊，廉署應該深入調查，務使事態真相大白。”]

(2)  “After [the Match] was pointed out to be questionable, other persons also gave contradictory versions like the aforesaid 3 players.  One such person was the director‑general and consultant of Progoal, Yam Wai Hung.” [“球賽被指有問題後，其他人也有類似上述3名球員的前言不對後語。一個是普高的總監和顧問任煒雄。”]

(3)  “Another such person is [Mr Pui], the Vice‑Chairman of the Hong Kong Football Association Ltd.  When he was answering queries raised at the press conference held by the Hong Kong Football Association Ltd last Monday, he was unable to give any information as to who was the proprietor of Progoal and what was its source of funds.  However, 3 days afterwards, when he was interviewed by reporters, he admitted close relationship with Progoal.  He was able to say in great details the background, proprietor and source of funds etc of Progoal.  In other words, why did he keep a distance with Progoal 3 days ago?  That is intriguing.” [“另一人是足總副主席貝鈞奇，本周一在足總的記者會上答覆提問時，對於普高班主是誰？經費來源？也是一問三不知，但是3日之後，他接受記者訪問時，承認與普高關係密切，對其背景、班主、班費等情況，如數家珍。然則3日之前，貝鈞奇為何與普高保持距離，其間情況耐人尋味。”]

22.The Editorial then went on in the latter part of it to generally criticise the development of soccer as a sport in Hong Kong, and the HKFA’s management and involvement.

23.As I mentioned above, the jury found that the Editorial was defamatory of Mr Pui, which carried the following defamatory meanings:

(1)  Mr Pui deliberately hid his knowledge of and connection with Progoal with a view to distancing himself from the incident of match-fixing;

(2)  Mr Pui acted suspiciously by giving contradictory versions about his knowledge of and connection with Progoal.

24.It is Mr Ho’s position and unchallenged evidence that before he wrote the Editorial, he had talked to Mr Ku and read Mr Ku’s Report on what Mr Pui had said in answers at the Questioning Session.

25.It is also Mr Ho’s position and undisputed evidence that the statements in the Editorial (as quoted above at paragraph 21) about Mr Pui’s suspicious change of position and contradictory versions as to his knowledge of Progoal’s background, ownership and source of funds were based fundamentally on Mr Ku’s Report and the Sing Tao Interview Report.  This was so as Mr Ho regarded that there was a significant difference between Mr Pui’s answer as reported in Mr Ku’s Report and what he said at the personal interview as reported in the Sing Tao Interview Report three days later.

C.   QUALIFIED PRIVILEGE

C1.   The applicable principles

26.As said by Lord Bingham in Jameel, the defence of qualified privilege only arises if a statement published is defamatory and untrue.  The rationale behind this defence of responsible journalism is that there is only a reciprocal duty on the publisher to publish, and interest in the public to so receive and read, materials (even of a matter of public interest) which the publisher has taken reasonable steps to verify.  Thus, the publisher is protected if he has taken such steps as a reasonable and responsible journalist would take to try and ensure what is published is accurate and fit for a publication[6].

27.The defence seeks to strike a balance between freedom of expression on matters of public concern and the protection of an individual’s reputation. Lord Nicholls has therefore said this in Bonnick v Morris[7]:

“Stated shortly, the Reynolds privilege is concerned to provide a proper degree of protection for responsible journalism when reporting matters of public concern. Responsible journalism is the point at which a fair balance is held between freedom of expression on matters of public concern and the reputations of individuals. Maintenance of this standard is in the public interest and in the interests of those whose reputations are involved. It can be regarded as the price journalists pay in return for the privilege.”

28.Thus, in order to succeed in this defence, a defendant publisher or journalist needs to show that:

(1)  The subject matter of the article was of a matter of public interest; and

(2)  If the publication, including the defamatory statement, passes the public interest test, the steps taken to gather and publish the information were responsible and fair in the circumstances[8].

29.In considering whether the defendant has so behaved fairly and responsibly in gathering and publishing the information or statements, the court may as appropriate take into consideration the non-exhaustive ten matters identified by Lord Nicholls in Reynolds[9]. These well-known ten matters[10] are:

(1)  The seriousness of the allegation.  The more serious the charge is, the more the public is misinformed and the individual harmed, if the allegation is not true.

(2)  The nature of the information, and the extent to which the subject matter is a matter of public concern.

(3)  The source of the information.  Some informants have no direct knowledge of the events.  Some have their own axes to grind, or are being paid for their stories.

(4)  The steps taken to verify the information.

(5)  The status of the information.  The allegation may have already been the subject of an investigation which commands respect.

(6)  The urgency of the matter.  News is often a perishable commodity.

(7)  Whether comment was sought from the plaintiff. He may have information others do not possess or have not disclosed.  However, an approach to the plaintiff will not always be necessary.

(8)  Whether the article contains the gist of the plaintiff’s side of the story.

(9)  The tone of the article.  A newspaper can raise queries or call for an investigation.  It needs not adopt allegations as statements of fact.

(10)  The circumstances of the publication including the timing.

30.But as emphasized by Lord Nicholls, this list is not exhaustive, and the weight to be given to these matters and any other relevant factors will vary from case to case.

31.In making its assessment, the concrete facts of the case are important to the court’s determination of whether the privilege is established[11], and the court should bear in mind that the standard of conduct required of the newspaper must be applied in a practical and flexible manner, and have regard to practical realities[12]. At the same time, context is important when the standard is applied to each piece of information that the journalist wishes to publish.  This must be assessed by looking to the story as a whole[13].

32.Bearing these principles in mind, I now turn to the facts of the present case to consider whether the defence is established.

C2.   The present case

C2.1    The live issue and the relevant facts

33.Insofar as this defence is concerned, there is no dispute in the present case that the subject matter of the Editorial was a matter of public concern.  Thus, the relevant live issue is whether the steps taken by the newspaper to gather and publish the Editorial with the defamatory statements were responsible and fair in the context and circumstances of the case.

34.In my view, in considering whether the defendants had taken fair and responsible steps to gather and publish these statements in Editorial, the following facts and unchallenged evidence are material.

35.First, it is important to bear in mind that the defamatory meanings in the Editorial as found by the jury are reflected in those statements of the Editorial as quoted at paragraph 21 above:

(1)  “另外，足總副主席貝鈞奇對於普高的「身世」和資金來源，短短3日之內，由「不知道」到一清二楚地披露，使人覺得整件事甚為蹺蹊，廉署應該深入調查，務使事態真相大白。”

(2)  “球賽被指有問題後，其他人也有類似上述3名球員的前言不對後語。一個是普高的總監和顧問任煒雄。”

(3)  “另一人是足總副主席貝鈞奇，本周一在足總的記者會上答覆提問時，對於普高班主是誰？經費來源？也是一問三不知，但是3日之後，他接受記者訪問時，承認與普高關係密切，對其背景、班主、班費等情況，如數家珍。然則3日之前，貝鈞奇為何與普高保持距離，其間情況耐人尋味。”

36.As mentioned above, it is Mr Ho’s own position that these statements were premised on what he regarded as the significant differences between Mr Pui’s answers at the Questioning Session as reported in Mr Ku’s Report and Mr Pui’s interview as reported in the Sing Tao Interview Report three days later.

37.Thus, as also accepted by Mr Ho, the most important underlying basis for the Editorial to contain these statements was Mr Ku’s Report, which reported Mr Pui’s lack of substantive answers to the questions raised at the Questioning Session.

38.Second, on 7 April 2009 (ie, the day after the press conference), other than Mr Ku’s Report, there were other newspapers which reported the press conference.  Seven of these newspapers東方日報 (Oriental Daily); 蘋果日報 (Apple Daily); 大公報 (Tai Kung Pao); 文匯報 (Wen Wei Pao); 都市日報 (Metro Daily); 太陽報 (Sun Daily); and AM730 were shown to Mr Ho under cross-examination at trial.  I will for convenience refer these reports collectively as “the Seven Other Newspaper Reports”.

39.Of the Seven Other Newspaper Reports:

(1)  There was no mentioning of Mr Pui at all in Oriental Daily, Wen Wei Pao, Metro, Sun Daily and AM730.

(2)  Apple Daily and Tai Kung Pao also reported on what Mr Pui had said the Questioning Session.

(3)  For Apple Daily’s report, Mr Ho accepted in evidence that what was reported there was quite different from what was reported in Mr Ku’s Report.  In Mr Ku’s Report, it was said that Mr Pui did not disclose who the sponsor was but only said that there were many sources of financial support and believed that they were proper ones.  But Apple Daily reported that Mr Pui said that he himself had at one time personally sponsored Progoal.  Mr Ho also accepted that the focus and the coverage of the extent of what Mr Pui had said at this occasion in these two newspapers were different.

(4)  In relation to Tai Kung Pao’s report, Mr Ho also accepted that what was mentioned there was in greater detail, which was not covered in Mr Ku’s Report.  He accepted that Mr Ku’s Report in this respect was not as detail as that of Tai Kung Pao, and did not have some of the information as reported in the Tai Kung Pao report.

40.Thus, some of the Seven Other Newspaper Reports provided a more detail and extensive coverage of what Mr Pui had said at the Questioning Session on information regarding Progoal and its source of fund.

41.Third, Mr Ho accepted under cross-examination that even on the same occasion, different reporters might have different focuses on and angles in the approach to the questions asked of, and answers made by, an interviewee thereat. Thus, a particular reporter might only report on matters or answers given by an interviewee that concerned and interested that reporter, and might not report matters that he was not particularly interested in or focused on.  Mr Ho therefore accepted that different newspaper reports on the same occasion might have differences in their coverage and extent as to what happened on that occasion.

42.Fourth, on the special verdicts, the jury has found that prior to writing the Editorial on 9 April, Mr Ho did not read all the Seven Other Newspaper Reports nor the Tai Kung Pao.

43.Fifth, at the same time, of the special verdicts, the jury also found the following:

(1)  Mr Ku did ring up Mr Pui on 9 April 2009.

(2)  Mr Ku did ask Mr Pui why he did not tell the source of fund of Progoal shortly after the press conference on 6 April 2009, and yet he could give details of Progoal’s source of funds within 3 days on 8 April 2009 (ie, when he was interviewed by Sing Tao).

(3)  In reply, Mr Pui answered to Mr Ku “一時記唔起 ” against a noisy background “嘈吵的環境 ”.

(4)  The statement in the Editorial that Mr Pui acted “前言不對後語 ” was just a personal view of Mr Ho but not of the “社評會 ”[14].

C2.2    Applying the facts to the present case

44.Applying these facts, I now move on to consider the various factors relevant to the question of qualifiedprivilege as follows.

C2.3    The first, and ninth factors

45.The first and ninth factors can be taken together.  They relate to the seriousness of the allegation and the tone of the Editorial.  In my view the allegations (ie, the defamatory statements as found by the jury) are of a serious nature.  They suggested and suspected Mr Pui’s involvement in the match-fixing of the Match.  The seriousness of the allegation is further underlined by the following:

(1)  The undisputed fact that Mr Pui is a person well known in the soccer sport circle and has been involved closely in the promotion and organization of professional soccer in Hong Kong for many years.

(2)  The statements were published in an editorial, which is generally regarded as an article of a serious nature, representing the views of the newspaper.

(3)  The tone of the Editorial was serious and very critical generally of the development of soccer as a sport in Hong Kong.  Mr Pui was specifically named in it for a number of times.

46.Whether Ming Pao had carried out fair and responsible steps to gather and publish the allegations must be viewed under the above seriousness of the allegations and tone of the Editorial.

C2.4    The second, third, fourth and fifth factors

47.The second, third, fourth and fifth factors could be considered together.  There is no dispute that the subject matter is of a public concern.

48.As to the source and nature of the information, in the present case, Mr Ho has confirmed that the defamatory statements and allegations were premised fundamentally only on Mr Ku’s Report on what was said by Mr Pui at the Questioning Session.  This in my view, cannot amount to having taken adequate reasonable and responsible verifying steps of the information contained in that report.  My reasons are as follows:

(1)  As confirmed by Mr Ho, the linchpin of the relevant statements in the Editorial that Mr Pui had been hiding something and had been contradictory himself was the lack of answers to the questions asked of him at the Questioning Session.

(2)  However, it is Mr Ho’s own evidence and acceptance that different reporters at the same occasion might well have reported differently of what someone had said thereat given the reporters’ own focus and interest.

(3)  As a matter of fact (as accepted by Mr Ho), there are some newspaper reports which reported in greater details and coverage than Mr Ku’s Report of what was said by Mr Pui at the Questioning Session.

(4)  Given (1) and (2) above, before relying on Mr Ku’s Report alone as a fundamental basis in making those defamatory statements in the Editorial, I am of the view it is only fair and responsible that Mr Ho should have also looked at the other newspaper reports on the Questioning Session to verify what Mr Ku’s Report had said about Mr Pui’s answers.

(5)  This, Mr Ho had failed to do as found by the jury.

C2.5    The sixth factor

49.For the sixth factor (the urgency of the matter), I do not think there is such urgency in the publication of the Editorial in the present case which would make it impracticable or reasonable not to look at the other newspaper reports concerning Mr Pui’s answers at the Questioning Session.  In any event, even if the Editorial had to be published on 10 April, there is no suggestion (nor in my view could there be such suggestion) that there was not enough time to review the Seven Other Newspaper Reports.

C2.6    The seventh and eighth factors

50.The seventh and eighth factors can also be considered together.  They relate to whether comment was sought from Mr Pui, and whether the Editorial contained in gist Mr Pui’s side of the story.

51.As to the seventh factor, as found by the jury, Mr Ku did ask Mr Pui on 9 April over the telephone as to why he did not tell the source of fund of Progoal shortly after the press conference on 6 April 2009, and yet he could give details of Progoal’s source of funds within 3 days when he was interviewed by Sing Tao, and Mr Pui answered that “一時記唔起” against a noisy background [“嘈吵的環境 ”].

52.Mr Shieh SC for the defendants has submitted that, given that (a) Mr Ku had sought explanations from Mr Pui for his lack of answer at the Questioning Session, (b) Mr Pui had answered the enquiry, and (c) that Mr Pui’s answer had been referred to in the newspaper, the defendants must be regarded having acted fairly and reasonably in responsibly publishing the defamatory statements in Editorial.  These acts, counsel further says, provide a complete basis for the defence of qualified privilege in the circumstances of the present case, notwithstanding the defendants’ failure to read and refer to the other newspaper reports on the Questioning Session.

53.With respect, I disagree.

54.In my view, in considering responsible journalism in the circumstances of the present case, the importance of these acts should be viewed against two matters.  One is whether Mr Ku’s enquiry and Mr Pui’s answer had been fairly and reasonably brought to the attention of the readers reading the Editorial.  The other is Mr Pui’s said answer should also be fairly put before the readers in the proper context of what he had said at the Questioning Session as reported in the other newspapers.  This is where the consideration of the eighth factor (ie, whether the article contained the gist of the plaintiff’s side of the story) comes in.

55.In other words, given the importance of what was said by Mr Pui at the Questioning Session as a fundamental basis of the defamatory statements in the Editorial, it is only fair and reasonable to expect and require Ming Pao to:

(1)  Put Mr Pui’s answer to Mr Ku’s said enquiry properly in the Editorial itself, or at the least expressly and reasonably draw a reader’s attention to Mr Pui’s said answer; and

(2)  Also reasonably draw a reader’s attention to what Mr Pui was reported to have said at the Questioning Session in the other newspaper reports.

56.However, as I see it, neither of these was done.

57.Insofar as Mr Ku’s enquiry and Mr Pui’s answer are concerned:

(1)  They were not mentioned in the body of the Editorial at all.  How these matters were mentioned and presented in the newspaper is this.  At the end of the Editorial, there is a bracketed reference stating “related news at Page A4” [“相關新聞刊A4”]. The Editorial was at page A2 of the newspaper.  This bracketed reference alone provides no suggestion that the related news would contain Mr Pui’s response to the allegations made against him in the Editorial.

(2)  If one turns to the “related news” at page A4, there was a news report with seven paragraphs having the following main headline: “普高球員紛改口否認假波 內部調查報告 張天德周偉明突反口”, and two sub‑headlines: “張天德:「$作怪」指國援薪金偏低”, “足總接受報告 相信國援解釋”.  Thus, reading these headlines, this article would appear to relate to a report on the Progoal Report, the explanations made by Progoal’s local players in the Progoal Report, and the HKFA’s acceptance of the report.

(3)  It is only towards the end of the fifth paragraph under the last headline “足總接受報告 相信國援解釋” that the reference to Mr Pui’s answer to Mr Ku’s inquiry was made: “早前貝一直堅稱自己不知道普高的財政來源，但近日就在報章訪問中詳細解說。他解釋是「一時記唔起」”.

(4)  In my view, the above convoluted and most indirect way of setting out Mr Pui’s answer to Mr Ku’s enquiry cannot be seen as a fair, reasonable and responsible way of drawing a reasonable reader’s attention to them.  Given this way of presentation and indirect reference, it cannot be reasonably expected that a reader reading the Editorial would also likely read this news report entirely and pick up the reference to Mr Pui’s answer.

58.Insofar as Mr Pui’s answers given at the Questioning Session as reported in other newspaper, as mentioned at paragraph 48 above, there was no reference to them at all in the Editorial or in the newspaper since Mr Ho had not read them.

C2.7    The tenth factor

59.As to the tenth factor, I do not think the circumstances and timing of the publication in the present case have any particular bearing on the question of whether the defendants had acted fairly and responsibly in gathering and publishing the relevant statements in the Editorial.

C2.8    The result

60.In my view, given the gravity of the defamatory allegations and the circumstances of the present case, to discharge their duty of responsible journalism in publishing the Editorial with these defamatory statements, the defendants should have (a) looked at the Seven Other Newspaper Reports and reasonably drawn to the attention of a reasonable reader the gist of these reports concerning Mr Pui’s answers at the Questioning Session, and (b) reasonably drawn the attention of a reader to Mr Pui’s answer to Mr Ku’s enquiry.

61.For the above reasons, the defendants had failed to do so.  I therefore do not find that the defendants had taken adequate fair and responsible steps to gather and publish the relevant defamatory statements in the Editorial.  The defence of qualified privilege is thus not established on the facts of the present case.

D.   CONCLUSION

62.The defendants fail in their defence of qualified privilege.

63.In the premises, and in light of the jury’s earlier verdicts, Mr Pui is successful in his claim against the defendants.  I therefore give judgment in favour of Mr Pui for damages in the sum of $500,000 as found by the jury.

64.There are no reasons why costs should not follow the event.  I further make an order nisi that costs be to Mr Pui, to be taxed if not agreed.  Unless any of the parties applies to vary it, the costs order nisi shall become absolute 14 days from today.

65.Lastly, I wish to thank counsel for their assistance in this matter.

Mr Jason Pow SC, instructed by Lau & Ngan for the plaintiff

Mr Paul Shieh SC leading Mr Law Man Chung, instructed by ONC Lawyers, for the 1^st to 3^rd defendants