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)
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
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.
The Plaintiff/Appellant in person (present)
Mr Kwok Sui Hay, instructed by Messrs Liu, Chan & Lam, for the Defendants/Respondents