Judge erred in ruling on dismissal of plagiarist
The Court of Appeal has ruled that a judge erred by considering his 'own reaction' to the South China Morning Post's dismissal of a journalist on the grounds of plagiarism.
In a decision handed down on Monday, Madam Justice Maria Yuen Ka-ning ruled that District Court judge Gerard Muttrie had gone further than required on May 2, 2002, when he awarded Thomas Vincent $171,426.70 for wrongful dismissal. She said it was not for the court 'to step into the employer's shoes' in deciding whether the termination was reasonable.
She added it was clear that the newspaper had terminated Mr Vincent's contract because he was guilty of serious or grave professional misconduct through plagiarism and copyright infringement, and that this entitled the newspaper to dismiss him.
'In my view, with respect to the judge, that is where he should have stopped, as the Hong Kong statutory scheme did not intend that the court ... should go any further,' said Madam Justice Yuen.
The court had heard that Mr Vincent was sacked over an article published under his byline in the December 4, 1998, edition of Premier Soccer, a South China Morning Post supplement.
It was later discovered that of the 1,790-word story, 1,600 words had been plagiarised from an article that had appeared in Britain's Sunday Times on November 29.
Mr Vincent was sacked three weeks short of his fifth anniversary of employment, which would have brought extra benefits.
Madam Justice Yuen quashed Deputy Judge Muttrie's order that the Post pay Mr Vincent $29,670 for three weeks' wages and $62,636.70 for reduction of pension payments. But she dismissed the Post's appeal against the order that it pay $79,120 for contractual end of year payments. The Post was awarded costs.
The court also included judges Thomas Gall and Arjan Sakhrani.
