XCHRX LEE KA CHUNG v. NEXT MAGAZINE PUBLISHING LTD.

HCA 7294/2000

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

ACTION NO. 7294 OF 2000

____________

_______________________

REASONS FOR DECISION

_______________________

1. This is an appeal by the Defendant against the order of Master Yuen who refused to strike out part of the Statement of Claim of the Plaintiff.

2. The application to strike out was made on the basis that the alleged defamatory statements were made against the Plaintiff's wife only and not against the Plaintiff. They do not, therefore, give the Plaintiff a valid cause of action or that they are scandalous, frivolous of vexatious, or they may prejudice, embarrass or delay a fair trial.

3. The alleged defamatory statements are indeed very serious. It may not be necessary to set out each of them in detail. But the statements suggest that the Plaintiff's wife had worked as an escort at night clubs and had extra marital affairs with other men who funded her expensive habits.

4. There is an allegation that the Plaintiff was not properly married to his wife although they appear in public as husband and wife. There is the allegation that as the Plaintiff's wife is not legally married to him, she finds it necessary to use other means to make money when she is still young in order to have a secured future and that her status as a married woman would somehow make her more attractive to other men.

5. At the outset and in no uncertain terms, I must state that I do not accept Mr Shieh's submission that an allegation that a man's wife is a prostitute, per se cannot be defamatory against the man.

6. The paragraphs in issue are, of course, part and parcel of an overall allegation, to put it bluntly that the Plaintiff's wife is a prostitute and that the Plaintiff is a cuckold.

7. Although the aforesaid defamatory statements were only made directly against the Plaintiff's wife, such statements, particularly in a Chinese society such as Hong Kong, would, in my view, nevertheless tend to lower the Plaintiff in the estimation of right thinking members of the society generally, may cause others to shun or avoid the Plaintiff and certainly would expose him to ridicule if not contempt or hatred even without any associating sting or innuendo.

8. Such defamatory statements, if proved, would no doubt provide the Plaintiff with a valid cause of action against the Defendant.

9. The learned Master was right to refuse to strike out the part of the Statement of Claim in question. In such circumstances, the appeal against her decision must be dismissed and I so order.