ORIENTAL DAILY PUBLISHER LTD. AND ANOTHER v. MING PAO HOLDINGS LTD. AND OTHERS

1995 No. A5612

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

____________

____________

_______________

R U L I N G

_______________

1. This is an application on the part of the Defendants to call a witness or witnesses to depose to the copying of 16 newspapers of the Oriental Daily News for the period prior to 1st December 1994. In the Re-Amended Defence of 16th January 1999, it is pleaded in para. 8(6):

"prior to 25th January 1995, the daily programme schedule of TVB and Asia Television (ATV) used to be printed in words of same size in the entertainment section of Oriental Daily News; the programme schedule of TVB was printed above that of ATV; and the logos of the 2 stations were printed above their respective daily programme schedules. From 25th January 1995 onwards until 29th January 1995 Oriental Daily News reduced the words in TVB's daily programme schedule in its entertainment section to a smaller size than the words in the daily programme schedule of ATV. Further, from 25th January 1995 onwards the programme schedule of TVB was printed below that of ATV; the logo of TVB was removed from the daily programme schedule but that of ATV was retained."

2. Therefore, when one looks at that pleading, one sees in the first words "prior to 25th January 1995" no starting date for the period referred to there. Further and Better Particulars were not requested of this sentence. It is a live issue before me whether there had been any changes in the period prior to 25th January 1995.

3. Therefore, as far as the pleadings are concerned, I am satisfied that the Defendant is entitled to call a witness or witnesses to speak to the period even before 1st December 1994. (The period after 1st December 1994 has been agreed to by the Plaintiff.)

4. However, no witness statements had been prepared on behalf of the Defendants for the period before 1st December 1994 and the Plaintiffs are now objecting to these witnesses being called as they have closed their case.

5. In the exercise of my discretion, I will permit these witnesses to be called especially since they are going to produce the Plaintiffs' own documents. However, given the lateness of this application, I will permit the Plaintiffs to reopen their case if they wish, insofar as they wish to call any evidence to rebut this piece of evidence, that is, to show that there had been some incidences prior to 1st December 1994 when there had been different sizes in words of the listings of the programme schedules of the two stations.