由此 A B C D - 2 1. I heard argument in this matter yesterday, when I dismissed the appeal with reasons to follow. These I now give. 2. A B On 24 November 2004, Mr Jook, who is employed by SBI, sent an e-mail, using his employer’s e-mail system, to a Mr Yeap, in Singapore. C D Emperor learned of the e-mail, and considered that it was defamatory of E F them. On 25 November 2004, Emperor issued a writ, with a general endorsement, alleging defamation by SBI and Mr Jook. Unspecified E F damages, including exemplary damages, and an injunction were sought by G way of relief. A statement of claim was filed on 9 March 2005. H H 3. I J G On 23 March 2005, SBI applied to stay the proceedings on the grounds of forum non conveniens, asserting that the proper forum was Singapore. An identical application was made by Mr Jook on the same day. I J In support of the applications affidavits were filed by SBI and Mr Jook K L asserting that the only recipient of the e-mail was Mr Yeap in Singapore, and that the e-mail was not sent to any other person or body in Hong Kong or K L Macau. M N M 4. In an affidavit in response, Vanessa Fan, managing director of N Emperor asserted: O P Q R O “The e-mail was distributed in Hong Kong to (among others) China Everbright Securities (Hong Kong) Ltd, which faxed to the Plaintiff the copy of the e-mail, a copy of which is exhibit “VF-1”. Ms Fan did not, in that affidavit, condescend to particulars as to the P Q R circumstances in which China Everbright, or any others, apparently received S T a copy of the e-mail. Despite a request for particulars as to those circumstances, none were supplied by Emperor. This matter came on for S T U U V V