in Hong Kong. I hold the plaintiffs to this, and proceed on this basis. The plaintiffs may not, in the face of this assurance to me, proceed on any other basis, even if this were possible. So the nature of the dispute for which a natural forum for its resolution must be selected is whether or not the defendants committed a tort in Hong Kong and whether or not the plaintiffs sustained damage in Hong Kong. The Evidence The plaintiffs’ evidence before the Master was that of Mr Wada himself. The salient facts to which Mr Wada deposes are – 1. since November 1994, he has kept an apartment as a residence in Hong Kong; 2. he is a Japanese national, but in about August 1995 he “ceased officially to be a resident of Japan”; 3. he has held “investments” in Hong Kong since 1994; 4. he is a businessman acting as an investor for himself and what one may call a facilitator for others; 5. he depends on the trust of his clients and contacts, and he has worked hard to build a good reputation, particularly with the first plaintiff’s client and contacts in Hong Kong; 6. he has direct relationships with financial institutions in Hong Kong; 7. he travels frequently, and spends 4 to 6 months a year in Hong Kong; 8. he does not have a residence elsewhere; 9. the first plaintiff has a liaison office in Hong and uses company secretarial services here; 10. the first plaintiff has bank and securities accounts with Citibank and Nikko Securities in Hong Kong; 11. the purpose of this action is to protect the plaintiffs’ reputations in Hong Kong; 12. the alleged defamatory articles have been read by business contacts and friends in Hong Kong and elsewhere; 13. the articles have affected the ability of the plaintiffs to do business; and 14. the plaintiffs have not commenced proceedings in relation to the articles in Japan or elsewhere. The evidence filed for the appeal does not take the matter much further, but does provide significant corroboration of what Mr Wada says. The defendants have not been able to mount any significant challenge to this evidence. The only significant factor against a conclusion that the plaintiffs do not have a substantial connection with Hong Kong is the probability that the first plaintiff 7