TSUI KOON WAH v. LAM KING YUEN AND OTHERS

cacv 92/2005

in the high court of the

hong kong special administrative region

court of appeal

civil appeal no. 92 of 2005

(on appeal from HCA NO. 890 of 2003)

___________________________

BETWEEN

TSUI KOON WAH Plaintiff
and
LAM KING YUEN 1st Defendant
KWOK YUEN HAN 2nd Defendant
TAM WAI HUNG 3rd Defendant
NG LAW SEE LING 4th Defendant

___________________________

Before : Hon Rogers VP and Waung J in Court

Date of Hearing : 31 May 2005

Further Submissions : 31 May and 1, 6, 8, 20 and 30 June 2005

Date of Handing Down Supplemental Judgment : 29 July 2005

___________________________

SUPPLEMENTAL JUDGMENT

___________________________

Hon Rogers VP:

1. By letter dated 22 July 2005, the appellant drew attention to various orders sought in the notice of appeal.

2. As was made clear in the judgment of 18 July there are clearly further amendments which the plaintiff might wish to seek, particularlyif he wishes to rely on a plea of malice. Some of the amendments that were disallowed related to malice and it would have been naturalfor the plaintiff to reconsider the pleading and make a further application with a view to producing a succinct plea of malice. It would appear that the plaintiff does not wish to avail himself of that opportunity. Apart from the proposed amendments to paragraphs19 and 47 of the amended reply, all other paragraphs have already been specifically referred to. As indicated in paragraph 6 ofthe judgment dated 18 July 2005, the plaintiff may plead malice in answer to a plea of qualified privilege. On that basis it isopen to the plaintiff to plead malice and the proposed amendment in paragraph 47 is allowable. However, since the plea in paragraph19 amounts to the same plea of malice against the same defendant, the proposed amendment to paragraph 19 would introduce repetition,if paragraph 47 were also amended. Hence the proposed amendment of paragraph 19 would not be allowed.

3. The other points which the plaintiff has sought to raise again, have been dealt with in paragraphs 1 to 4 of the judgment of 18July 2005. This court is, therefore, not disposed to grant orders in terms of paragraphs 3 to 6 of the orders sought by the noticeof appeal.

Hon Waung J:

4. I agree.

(Anthony Rogers)
Vice-President
(William Waung)
Judge of the Court of First Instance

The Plaintiff/Appellant in person (present)

Mr Kwok Sui Hay, instructed by Messrs Liu, Chan & Lam, for the Defendants/Respondents