SECRETARY FOR JUSTICE AND ANOTHER v. PERSONS UNLAWFULLY AND WILFULLY CONDUCTING THEMSELVES IN ANY OF THE ACTS PROHIBITED UNDER PARAGRAPH 1(A), (B) OR (C) OF THE INDORSEMENT OF CLAIM

SECRETARY FOR JUSTICE AND ANOTHER v. PERSONS UNLAWFULLY AND WILFULLY CONDUCTING THEMSELVES IN ANY OF THE ACTS PROHIBITED UNDER PARAGRAPH 1(A), (B) OR (C) OF THE INDORSEMENT OF CLAIM

On the evidence there were serious issues to be tried that widespread doxxing created a public nuisance and gave rise to harassment/intimidation; damages were inadequate and the balance of convenience strongly favored continuation of the interim injunction. The injunction is continued but modified to remove imprecise language and to expressly exempt lawful acts done solely for the purpose of a news activity as defined in PDPO s61, because that clarification prevents chilling of legitimate journalism while preserving restraints on unlawful conduct.

Citation
[2019] HKCFI 2773
Parties
1st Plaintiff: Secretary for Justice; 2nd Plaintiff: Commissioner of Police; Defendants: Persons unlawfully and wilfully conducting themselves in any of the acts prohibited under paragraph 1(a), (b) or (c) of the Indorsement of Claim; Applicant/interested Party: Hong Kong Journalists Association
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
8 November 2019
Case Number
HCA1957/2019
Procedural Posture
Civil Injunction Proceedings (interlocutory) / Inter Partes Summons for Continuation and Variation of Interim Injunction (hearing and Ruling)
Outcome
Interim injunction continued with modification and limited media exemption
Legal Topics
Doxxing, Interim Injunction, Personal Data (privacy) Ordinance) S61 News Activity, Balance of Convenience, Proportionality, Representative Actions by Secretary for Justice
Source Language
EN
Civil Torts Public Nuisance Harassment and Intimidation Data Protection and Privacy Injunctions Freedom of Expression/media Law Doxxing Interim Injunction +4 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 7 Authorities cited 5 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Secretary for Justice

1st Plaintiff

Commissioner of Police

2nd Plaintiff

Persons unlawfully and wilfully conducting themselves in any of the acts prohibited under paragraph 1(a), (b) or (c) of the Indorsement of Claim

Defendants

Hong Kong Journalists Association

Applicant/interested Party

Procedural Posture

Civil Injunction Proceedings (interlocutory) / Inter Partes Summons for Continuation and Variation of Interim Injunction (hearing and Ruling)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether there are serious issues to be tried on public nuisance, harassment and/or intimidation arising from doxxing activities
  2. 2 Whether damages would be an adequate remedy and where the balance of convenience lies for an interlocutory injunction
  3. 3 Whether the interim injunction is overbroad and needs a media/news exemption under PDPO s61

Ratio Decidendi

On the evidence there were serious issues to be tried that widespread doxxing created a public nuisance and gave rise to harassment/intimidation; damages were inadequate and the balance of convenience strongly favored continuation of the interim injunction. The injunction is continued but modified to remove imprecise language and to expressly exempt lawful acts done solely for the purpose of a news activity as defined in PDPO s61, because that clarification prevents chilling of legitimate journalism while preserving restraints on unlawful conduct.

Court Disposition

Interim injunction continued with modification and limited media exemption

Orders

  • Continuation of the interim Injunction Order (as previously granted) subject to modification: removal of the word 'interfere' from paragraphs 1(a) and 1(b) of the Injunction Order
  • Add proviso on the face of the Injunction Order that paragraph 1 does not prohibit any lawful act(s) done solely for the purpose of a 'news activity' as defined in section 61 of the Personal Data (Privacy) Ordinance Cap 486