sufficient. The nature of the material published in the case before me is such that, in the nature of things, one would expect what is said about the plaintiffs to spread from mouth to ear quickly amongst those who might do business with them. In these circumstances, I would regard a significantly smaller number than 157 as sufficient. Connections and Reputation I have some little difficulty with a consideration of “the extent to which the plaintiff had connections with, and a reputation to protect in, this country” (My emphasis.). Hirst, LJ, in the Berezovsky case at page300, did use the conjunctive “and” in stating the principle, but I am not sure that the two factors are independent. In Kroch v Rossell [1937] 1 All ER 725, which Hirst, LJ cited with approval, Slesser, LJ said at 729B – “. . . if there were evidence in a particular case that a person had a reputation in this country to be defamed, or was known here, or traded here, or had a professional or social connections, it might be that the circulation of a very few copies might do him very serious and irreparable harm.” I suggest that the fundamental consideration is the extent to which the plaintiffs have a reputation in Hong Kong to protect. The degree to which the plaintiffs have connections here is evidence that they have, or have not, a reputation here that merits protection. The Natural Forum for the Resolution of the Dispute There can be no doubt that what is alleged by the plaintiffs constitutes serious libels by the defendants. Publication of the libels in Hong Kong would be torts committed in Hong Kong. The plaintiffs do not, by their statement of claim, expressly confine their action to the torts committed, and the damage sustained, in Hong Kong. But damage in Hong Kong in a libel case can flow only from a publication in Hong Kong. So, whether they say so or not, the plaintiffs are confined in their action to a tort committed in Hong Kong causing damage in Hong Kong. Mr Jat assures me that this is the plaintiffs’ intention, and, indeed, the second plaintiff’s evidence relates to publication and damage 6