FUNG TAK KEUNG v. HIEW KWAI FOOK AND ANOTHER

FUNG TAK KEUNG v. HIEW KWAI FOOK AND ANOTHER

The court found the words, read in context, imputed a possible future act and thus were not slander actionable per se; alternatively the defendants genuinely believed the plaintiff had assaulted the complainant based on the complainant's injuries, medical records and police complaint, so the defence of justification...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
FUNG TAK KEUNG v. HIEW KWAI FOOK AND ANOTHER
Parties
Plaintiff: Fung Tak Keung; 1st Defendant: Hiew Kwai Fook; 2nd Defendant: Hiew Man Ching
Court
District Court
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
27 May 2009
Case Number
DCCJ5738/2007
Procedural Posture
Civil Action Defamation (slander) / District Court Judgment Following Trial
Outcome
Claim dismissed; defendants' defences upheld.
Legal Topics
Slander Actionable Per Se, Justification (truth), Fair Comment / Honest Opinion, Qualified Privilege, Costs
Source Language
en
Defamation Tort Law Civil Procedure Slander Actionable Per Se Justification (truth) Fair Comment / Honest Opinion Qualified Privilege Costs

Source-derived case record

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 7 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Fung Tak Keung

Plaintiff

Hiew Kwai Fook

1st Defendant

Hiew Man Ching

2nd Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Action Defamation (slander) / District Court Judgment Following Trial

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the uttered words were defamatory and actionable per se
  2. 2 Whether the defendants could rely on justification (truth) as a defence
  3. 3 Whether the words were mere heated insult/sarcasm (mere vulgar abuse) and not defamatory

Ratio Decidendi

The court found the words, read in context, imputed a possible future act and thus were not slander actionable per se; alternatively the defendants genuinely believed the plaintiff had assaulted the complainant based on the complainant's injuries, medical records and police complaint, so the defence of justification succeeded; the words were also uttered sarcastically in a heated AGM context and did not bear a literal defamatory meaning; accordingly the defendants' defences succeeded and the plaintiff's claim was dismissed.

Court Disposition

Claim dismissed; defendants' defences upheld.

Orders

  • Plaintiff's claim dismissed.
  • Costs to follow the event: cost nisi order that the Plaintiff pay the Defendants' costs to be taxed if not agreed with certificate for counsel.