YU SAU NING HOMER v. WONG WAN KEUNG AND OTHERS

YU SAU NING HOMER v. WONG WAN KEUNG AND OTHERS

Letters were defamatory and, although published on a prima facie privileged occasion (owners' common interest), qualified privilege failed because the defendants did not honestly believe the allegations or were reckless as to their truth and their dominant purpose was to harm the plaintiff; fair comment defence likewise defeated by lack of honest belief; defendants liable and damages awarded.

Citation
[2020] HKDC 40
Parties
Plaintiff (chairman): Yu Sau Ning Homer; 1st Defendant (vice‑chairman): Wong Wan Keung; 2nd Defendant (committee Member): Cheng Yat Ting; 3rd Defendant (treasurer/committee Member): Lau Kam Lun; 4th Defendant (committee Member): Cheung Cheung
Court
District Court
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
17 March 2020
Case Number
DCCJ313/2016
Procedural Posture
Defamation (libel) / Judgment (trial)
Outcome
Judgment for plaintiff: defendants liable for libel; qualified privilege and fair comment defences rejected due to malice; damages awarded.
Legal Topics
Qualified Privilege, Fair Comment, Malice, Damages, Publication, Owners' Meeting/election Disputes
Source Language
EN
Defamation Civil Procedure Property/building Management Qualified Privilege Fair Comment Malice Damages Publication +1 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 6 Authorities cited 9 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Yu Sau Ning Homer

Plaintiff (chairman)

Wong Wan Keung

1st Defendant (vice‑chairman)

Cheng Yat Ting

2nd Defendant (committee Member)

Lau Kam Lun

3rd Defendant (treasurer/committee Member)

Cheung Cheung

4th Defendant (committee Member)

Procedural Posture

Defamation (libel) / Judgment (trial)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the letters were published
  2. 2 Whether the letters referred to the plaintiff
  3. 3 Meaning of the impugned words

Ratio Decidendi

Letters were defamatory and, although published on a prima facie privileged occasion (owners' common interest), qualified privilege failed because the defendants did not honestly believe the allegations or were reckless as to their truth and their dominant purpose was to harm the plaintiff; fair comment defence likewise defeated by lack of honest belief; defendants liable and damages awarded.

Court Disposition

Judgment for plaintiff: defendants liable for libel; qualified privilege and fair comment defences rejected due to malice; damages awarded.

Orders

  • Judgment for plaintiff against 1st‑4th defendants for libel in respect of first letter in the sum of HK$500,000
  • Judgment for plaintiff against 2nd defendant for libel in respect of second letter in the sum of HK$500,000