WONG WING SUN v. FONG YIU TONG, FRANCIS AND OTHERS

WONG WING SUN v. FONG YIU TONG, FRANCIS AND OTHERS

The court found on the evidence that the impugned statements about the plaintiff's performance were substantially true and justified, and that communications within the appraisal and investigatory process attracted qualified privilege absent proof of malice; accordingly the defamation claim and ancillary breach/tort claims were dismissed and costs were ordered against the plaintiff.

Citation
[2019] HKDC 517
Parties
Plaintiff (operators and Training Officer): Mr Wong; 1st Defendant (superior Officer): 1st Defendant (Appraising Officer); 2nd Defendant (superior Officer): 2nd Defendant (Countersigning Officer); 3rd Defendant (superior Officer / Investigating Officer): 3rd Defendant (Reviewing Officer); 4th Defendant (employer): Civil Aid Service
Court
District Court
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
16 April 2019
Case Number
DCCJ5078/2014
Procedural Posture
Defamation Claim With Ancillary Breach of Employment Contract and Tort Claims / Judgment (trial Concluded)
Outcome
Plaintiff's claim dismissed against the 1st, 2nd, 3rd and 4th defendants
Legal Topics
Performance Appraisal, Justification (truth) Defence, Qualified Privilege, Malice in Defamation, Breach of Contract Implied Terms, Duty of Care in Employment, Abuse of Process, Costs
Source Language
EN
Defamation Employment Law Tort Civil Procedure Performance Appraisal Justification (truth) Defence Qualified Privilege Malice in Defamation +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 5 Authorities cited 3 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Mr Wong

Plaintiff (operators and Training Officer)

1st Defendant (Appraising Officer)

1st Defendant (superior Officer)

2nd Defendant (Countersigning Officer)

2nd Defendant (superior Officer)

3rd Defendant (Reviewing Officer)

3rd Defendant (superior Officer / Investigating Officer)

Civil Aid Service

4th Defendant (employer)

Procedural Posture

Defamation Claim With Ancillary Breach of Employment Contract and Tort Claims / Judgment (trial Concluded)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the statements in the appraisal form, write-up, memo and observation notes were defamatory
  2. 2 Whether the defendants can establish the defence of justification (substantial truth)
  3. 3 Whether qualified privilege applies to appraisal communications and whether malice was shown

Ratio Decidendi

The court found on the evidence that the impugned statements about the plaintiff's performance were substantially true and justified, and that communications within the appraisal and investigatory process attracted qualified privilege absent proof of malice; accordingly the defamation claim and ancillary breach/tort claims were dismissed and costs were ordered against the plaintiff.

Court Disposition

Plaintiff's claim dismissed against the 1st, 2nd, 3rd and 4th defendants

Orders

  • Claim dismissed
  • Order nisi that the costs of this action be paid by the plaintiff to the 1st, 2nd, 3rd and 4th defendants to be taxed if not agreed, with certificate for counsel