THE INCORPORATED OWNERS OF SHATIN NEW TOWN AND OTHERS v. CHEUNG KWOK KEUNG AND OTHERS

THE INCORPORATED OWNERS OF SHATIN NEW TOWN AND OTHERS v. CHEUNG KWOK KEUNG AND OTHERS

The court dismissed both summonses because the applicant failed to satisfy the Bonnard v Perryman criteria: he did not exclude the possibility of a successful defence (qualified privilege applied and was plausibly available), failed to demonstrate a real threat or intention to republish, and could not establish malice on interlocutory affidavit evidence; additionally the application to admit late police evidence failed Ladd v Marshall's first and second conditions (evidence obtainable with reasonable diligence and unlikely to change the interlocutory outcome).

Citation
[2021] HKDC 1449
Parties
1st Plaintiff: The Incorporated Owners of Shatin New Town; 2nd Plaintiff: Lee Shui Chong; 3rd Plaintiff: Mak Lam Wing; 4th Plaintiff: Tam Mei Chu; 1st Defendant: Cheung Kwok Keung; 2nd Defendant: Wong Kin Wa; 3rd Defendant: Cheung Kam Kwan; 4th Defendant: Leung Lai Fan; 1st Plaintiff (counterclaim): Cheung Kwok Keung; 2nd Plaintiff (counterclaim): Wong Kin Wa; 3rd Plaintiff (counterclaim): Cheung Kam Kwan; 4th Plaintiff (counterclaim): Leung Lai Fan; 1st Defendant (counterclaim): Lee Shui Chong; 2nd Defendant (counterclaim): Mak Lam Wing; 3rd Defendant (counterclaim): Tam Mei Chu
Court
District Court
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
19 November 2021
Case Number
DCCJ2684/2019
Procedural Posture
Civil Action for Defamation (incorporated Owners/management Committee Dispute) / Interlocutory Applications Decided (injunction Summons and Application to Adduce Additional Evidence)
Outcome
Both the Injunction Summons and the Additional Evidence Summons were dismissed.
Legal Topics
Interlocutory Injunctions, Qualified Privilege, Malice, Admission of Fresh Evidence Post Hearing, Bonnard V Perryman Test, Ladd V Marshall Test, Management Committee Disputes
Source Language
EN
Defamation Civil Procedure Evidence Building Management Law Injunctions Interlocutory Injunctions Qualified Privilege Malice +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 4 Authorities cited 14 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

The Incorporated Owners of Shatin New Town

1st Plaintiff

Lee Shui Chong

2nd Plaintiff

Mak Lam Wing

3rd Plaintiff

Tam Mei Chu

4th Plaintiff

Cheung Kwok Keung

1st Defendant

Wong Kin Wa

2nd Defendant

Cheung Kam Kwan

3rd Defendant

Leung Lai Fan

4th Defendant

Cheung Kwok Keung

1st Plaintiff (counterclaim)

Wong Kin Wa

2nd Plaintiff (counterclaim)

Cheung Kam Kwan

3rd Plaintiff (counterclaim)

Leung Lai Fan

4th Plaintiff (counterclaim)

Lee Shui Chong

1st Defendant (counterclaim)

Mak Lam Wing

2nd Defendant (counterclaim)

Tam Mei Chu

3rd Defendant (counterclaim)

Procedural Posture

Civil Action for Defamation (incorporated Owners/management Committee Dispute) / Interlocutory Applications Decided (injunction Summons and Application to Adduce Additional Evidence)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the impugned notices/statements bore the ordinary meaning that the 2nd defendant remained under criminal investigation
  2. 2 Whether the Bonnard v Perryman criteria for an interlocutory injunction were satisfied
  3. 3 Whether qualified privilege or statutory defences under the Building Management Ordinance applied

Ratio Decidendi

The court dismissed both summonses because the applicant failed to satisfy the Bonnard v Perryman criteria: he did not exclude the possibility of a successful defence (qualified privilege applied and was plausibly available), failed to demonstrate a real threat or intention to republish, and could not establish malice on interlocutory affidavit evidence; additionally the application to admit late police evidence failed Ladd v Marshall's first and second conditions (evidence obtainable with reasonable diligence and unlikely to change the interlocutory outcome).

Court Disposition

Both the Injunction Summons and the Additional Evidence Summons were dismissed.

Orders

  • Dismissed both summonses with costs in favour of P1 and P2
  • Costs order nisi: D2 to pay costs of P1 & P2 on both summonses to be taxed party and party; certificate for 2 counsel in Injunction Summons and 1 counsel in Additional Evidence Summons