LAW MAN HING v. ASIA TELEVISION LTD. AND ANOTHER

HCA 5591/99

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

ACTION NO. 5591 OF 1999

____________

______________

D E C I S I O N

______________

1. The Plaintiff brings this action against the 2 Defendants for libel. At the time of trial he acts in person. The trial was scheduled to last for 3 days commencing yesterday. The Plaintiff testified yesterday and (when the trial was adjourned yesterday) was in the course of being cross-examined by the 1st Defendant's counsel. The 2nd Defendant has yet to cross-examine him.

2. The trial was adjourned to 10 a.m. today in the Plaintiff presence. He fails to turn up today up to now and the defence asks for his claim to be dismissed.

3. I consider that there is power to do so pursuant either to RHC Ord 35 r 1 or the court's inherent jurisdiction. Because some evidence has already been adduced by the Plaintiff yesterday, it may be technically more appropriate to order a trial de novo which is to immediately commence today before granting the dismissal order now sought by the defence.

4. Whether or not such an order for a trial de novo is strictly necessary, I consider that in the circumstances of this case the net result should be the same. That is to say, having taken into account the circumstances of the Plaintiff's absence today, an order should be made to dismiss his claim for want of prosecution and I will so order.