DING HING HUI v. ZHENG NENGHUAN AND ANOTHER

DING HING HUI v. ZHENG NENGHUAN AND ANOTHER

The defence did not disclose any reasonable defence: the disciplinary decision did not support any finding or implication of bribery so the imputation of bribery was defamatory and not justified by truth or fair comment; qualified privilege did not apply because alleging bribery was not reasonably necessary to the occasion; the defendants failed to give a satisfactory explanation for the delay in filing A/S and Defence and leave was refused; accordingly default judgment was entered on the plaintiff's pleaded claims for orders to publish an apology and to procure withdrawal/clarification of the EGM Circular and costs were awarded.

Citation
[2026] HKCFI 2148
Parties
Plaintiff: Ding Hing Hui; 1st Defendant: Zheng Nenghuan; 2nd Defendant: Han Vision Holdings Limited
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
16 April 2026
Case Number
HCA78/2026
Procedural Posture
Defamation (libel) / Hearing of Summons for Default Judgment; Leave to File Acknowledgement of Service and Defence Out of Time
Outcome
Leave Summons dismissed; default judgment entered against the 1st and 2nd Defendants in respect of the plaintiff's claims for a public/formal apology and procurement of withdrawal and clarification of the EGM Circular; costs awarded to plaintiff
Legal Topics
Default Judgment, Qualified Privilege, Publication, Leave to File Defence Out of Time, Costs Assessment, Injunctive Relief
Source Language
EN
Defamation Civil Procedure Company Law Securities Regulation Default Judgment Qualified Privilege Publication Leave to File Defence Out of Time +2 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 4 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Ding Hing Hui

Plaintiff

Zheng Nenghuan

1st Defendant

Han Vision Holdings Limited

2nd Defendant

Procedural Posture

Defamation (libel) / Hearing of Summons for Default Judgment; Leave to File Acknowledgement of Service and Defence Out of Time

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the published statements were defamatory
  2. 2 Whether the defendants' pleaded defences (truth, fair comment, qualified privilege) disclosed a reasonable defence
  3. 3 Whether leave should be granted to file acknowledgement of service and defence out of time

Ratio Decidendi

The defence did not disclose any reasonable defence: the disciplinary decision did not support any finding or implication of bribery so the imputation of bribery was defamatory and not justified by truth or fair comment; qualified privilege did not apply because alleging bribery was not reasonably necessary to the occasion; the defendants failed to give a satisfactory explanation for the delay in filing A/S and Defence and leave was refused; accordingly default judgment was entered on the plaintiff's pleaded claims for orders to publish an apology and to procure withdrawal/clarification of the EGM Circular and costs were awarded.

Court Disposition

Leave Summons dismissed; default judgment entered against the 1st and 2nd Defendants in respect of the plaintiff's claims for a public/formal apology and procurement of withdrawal and clarification of the EGM Circular; costs awarded to plaintiff

Orders

  • Leave Summons dismissed with costs to the Plaintiff
  • Default judgment entered against the 1st and 2nd Defendants in terms of paragraph 1(1) and (2) of the Plaintiff's Summons (order to publish a public and formal apology in one local newspaper; order to procure Raffles Interior Limited to withdraw the EGM Circular and issue a clarification announcement)