誹謗言論是否具備所指稱的含義？申請駁回

### 案件基本資料 - 案件名稱：Ho Yuen Ki Winnie 及 Moon Valley Foundation Limited 訴 Ho Hung Sun Stanley 及 Sociedade de Turismo e Diversoes de Macau, S.A. - 法院：高等法院原訟法庭 (Court of First Instance, CFI) - 法官：Poon J - 判決日期：2007年7月20日 ### 案情摘要 本案原告為「十姑娘」何婉琪及其於2003年成立的慈善基金會Moon Valley Foundation Limited。被告為何鴻燊及其公司Sociedade de Turismo e Diversoes de Macau, S.A. (STDM)。原告於2006年2月22日提起訴訟，控告被告誹謗。被告律師指出原告的申索陳述書 (Statement of Claim) 存在缺陷，並要求原告撤回或修改。原告提交了經修訂的申索陳述書 (Amended Statement of Claim, ASOC)。第一被告隨後申請剔除 (striking out) ASOC中的部分段落，或根據《高等法院規則》第14A號命令 (Order 14A, Rules of the High Court) 尋求裁定。原告亦申請重新修訂ASOC中的某些段落。 ### 核心法律爭議 本案主要法律爭議在於原告經修訂的申索陳述書中，被告所指稱的誹謗言論是否具備所聲稱的誹謗含義 (defamatory meaning)。被告方爭辯，部分言論無法構成誹謗，或其轉載 (republication) 的言論與原始言論不符，因此不應由被告負責。此外，被告質疑法院是否有權根據《高等法院規則》第14A號命令裁定誹謗案件中言論是否具備所指稱的含義。 ### 判決理由 法官在分析中指出，誹謗案件中，申索陳述書必須以合理的確定性 (reasonable certainty) 闡明被指控的言論。然而，對於口頭言論，若原告能證明所說的誹謗言論實質上具有相同效果，則「或實質上類似的誹謗言論」 (or substantially similar defamatory words) 的表述並不會造成困擾。法官強調，判斷言論是否具備誹謗含義，需考慮其整體語境 (entire context)。對於被告提出的剔除申請，法官認為，許多被質疑的言論在適當語境下，仍可被合理地解釋為具有誹謗含義，因此不應被剔除。法官亦指出，若缺乏足夠詳情，應申請進一步詳情 (further and better particulars)，而非剔除。 ### 引用案例與條文 本案引用了英國上訴法院的 Best v. Charter Medical of England Limited & another [2001] EWCA Civ. 1588 案，該案討論了誹謗訴訟中申索陳述書的撰寫要求，特別是關於必須以合理確定性列出被指控言論的原則。此外，也提及了 Gatley on Libel and Slander (第9版和第10版) 中關於口頭言論舉證的相關評論。 ### 裁決與命令 法官駁回了第一被告的剔除申請 (Striking Out Application) 和不允許修訂申請 (Disallowing Application)。對於根據《高等法院規則》第14A號命令提出的裁定申請 (O14A Application)，法官假設法院有管轄權，但鑑於已裁定相關段落可能具有所指稱的含義，因此也駁回了該申請。原告的重新修訂申請 (Re-Amendment Application) 獲准。訟費方面，原告獲得原傳票和修訂傳票的訟費，被告則獲得重新修訂申請的訟費。 ### 判決啟示 本判決重申了誹謗訴訟中，申索陳述書必須以合理確定性列出被指控言論的重要性，但同時也確認了在口頭誹謗案件中，若能證明言論實質上相同，則「或實質上類似的誹謗言論」的表述是可接受的。判決還強調，在判斷言論是否具誹謗性時，應考慮其整體語境。此外，對於申索陳述書的缺陷，法院傾向於要求提供進一步詳情而非直接剔除，這對訴訟策略有重要啟示。 --- ### 免責聲明 本摘要由人工智能自動生成，內容可能存在錯誤或遺漏，僅供參考，不構成法律意見。如需法律建議，請諮詢合資格律師。### Case Details - Case Name: Ho Yuen Ki Winnie and Moon Valley Foundation Limited v Ho Hung Sun Stanley and Sociedade de Turismo e Diversoes de Macau, S.A. - Court: Court of First Instance (CFI) - Judge: Poon J - Date of Judgment: 20 July 2007 ### Factual Background The plaintiffs, Winnie Ho Yuen Ki and her charitable foundation Moon Valley Foundation Limited, initiated a defamation action against Stanley Ho Hung Sun and his company Sociedade de Turismo e Diversoes de Macau, S.A. (STDM) on 22 February 2006. The defendants' solicitors raised concerns about defects in the plaintiffs' Statement of Claim, prompting the plaintiffs to file an Amended Statement of Claim (ASOC). The 1st defendant subsequently applied to strike out certain paragraphs of the ASOC or for a determination under Order 14A of the Rules of the High Court. The plaintiffs also sought to re-amend specific paragraphs of the ASOC. ### Key Legal Issues The core legal issues revolved around whether the alleged defamatory statements in the plaintiffs' Amended Statement of Claim were capable of bearing the meanings attributed to them. The defendants argued that some statements were not defamatory or that the republications were not attributable to them. Additionally, the defendants questioned the court's jurisdiction under Order 14A of the Rules of the High Court to determine the capability of words to bear an alleged defamatory meaning in a defamation action. ### Ratio Decidendi The judge's analysis emphasized that in defamation cases, the statement of claim must set out the words complained of with reasonable certainty. However, for oral statements, the phrase "or substantially similar defamatory words" is acceptable if the plaintiffs can prove the defamatory words spoken were substantially to the same effect. The judge stressed that the capability of words to bear a defamatory meaning must be assessed within their entire context. Regarding the striking out application, the judge found that many challenged statements, when understood in their proper context, were arguably capable of bearing the alleged defamatory meanings and thus should not be struck out. The judge also noted that applications for further and better particulars are more appropriate than striking out for pleading deficiencies. ### Key Precedents & Statutes The judgment cited Best v. Charter Medical of England Limited & another [2001] EWCA Civ. 1588, an English Court of Appeal case discussing pleading requirements in defamation actions, particularly the need to plead the exact words with reasonable certainty. References were also made to Gatley on Libel and Slander (9th and 10th editions) regarding the pleading of oral statements. ### Decision & Orders The judge dismissed the 1st defendant's Striking Out Application and the Disallowing Application. The O14A Application for determination was also dismissed, with the judge assuming jurisdiction but finding that the paragraphs in question were capable of bearing the alleged meanings. The plaintiffs' Re-Amendment Application was allowed. Costs were awarded to the plaintiffs for the Original Summons and Amendment Summons, and to the defendants for the Re-Amendment Application. ### Key Takeaways This judgment reaffirms the principle that defamatory words must be pleaded with reasonable certainty, but allows for the phrase "or substantially similar defamatory words" in oral defamation cases if the substance is the same. It highlights the importance of considering the entire context when assessing the defamatory nature of statements. Furthermore, the court indicated a preference for applications for further and better particulars over striking out for pleading deficiencies, offering crucial guidance for litigation strategy. --- ### Disclaimer This summary is AI-generated and may contain errors or omissions. It is for reference only and does not constitute legal advice. Please consult a qualified lawyer for professional legal advice.