Defamatory statements must be proven to have natural meanings that can harm a person's reputation; knowledge or intent to publish may not be necessary under certain circumstances.

Introduction

[1] In this present action, the plaintiff's claims against the 1st and 2nd defendants and each of them are as follows:

(i) for damages including aggravated damages for libel respecting words set out in para 5A of the amended statement of claim published or caused to be published, or printed and published, or caused to be printed and published of and concerning the plaintiff and/or of him in the way of his office(s) as a Member of Parliament, political and community leader and in relation to his conduct therein in the issue of "China Press" newspaper dated 26 June 2013,

(ii) for injunction,

(iii) for interest on the damages awarded,

(iv) for any other relief as the court may deem fit and proper to grant; and

(v) for costs.

[2] The plaintiff's action for damages for libel against the 1st and 2nd defendants and each of them is relying upon the natural and ordinary meanings of the words complained of. The meanings are set out in para 7 of the amended statement of claim and they are produced as follows:

"7. The words, complained of, in their natural and ordinary meanings meant and were understood to mean that:

(a) the plaintiff, in so acting as alleged, is a hypocrite and/or dishonest,

(b) the plaintiff was guilty of dishonourable and disgraceful conduct and/or criminal conduct in the said Election,

(c) the plaintiff was guilty or was suspected of being guilty of the criminal offence of corrupt practice of bribery under s 11(1)(b) of the Election Offences Act 1954 punishable by imprisonment, in the said Election.

(d) the plaintiff got elected by corrupt practice or bribery in the Election; and

(e) the plaintiff, in so acting as alleged, is unfit to act as a Member of Parliament, and/or unfit to become a Member of Parliament."

[3] This court notes that DW2, Leong Shook Yan, a reporter of China Press newspaper admitted that there were two typographical errors in her Chinese language report (exh P1). The first error is that the Chinese words in the said report which when translated into English read "determined to accept". The correct words should be "determined not to accept". The second error relates to the name of Ding Kuong Hiing appearing in the fourth paragraph of the said report and the correct name should be that of Wong Ling Biu, the plaintiff herein. DW2 further testified that except for the said two typographical errors, the rest of her said report in exh P1 is a true report of what the 1st defendant told her at the press conference on 25 June 2013.

The Main Defences Of The 1st Defendant And The 2nd Defendant

[4] The main defences relied upon by the 1st defendant are as follows:

(i) The 1st defendant did not utter the words complained of to the reporter of China Press on 25 June 2013 as alleged by the plaintiff.

(ii) The 1st defendant did not publish, or cause to be published, or cause to be printed and published the words complained of in the issue of China Press on 26 June 2013.

(iii) The Chinese language publication in China Press (exh P1) did not specifically state that the plaintiff was guilty of corrupt practice of bribery in the election.

(iv) The words complained of were not defamatory of the plaintiff.

(v) The 1st defendant had no knowledge or control over the publication and no consent was obtained from the 1st defendant prior to the publication of the words complained of.

(vi) No press conference was called by the 1st defendant on 25 June 2013. The reporter of China Press (DW2) was not present at the press conference on 25 June 2013.

(vii) The English translation of the Chinese report in exh P1 b