徐偉業 v. 東廬大樓業主立案法團

徐偉業 v. 東廬大樓業主立案法團

Leave to appeal was dismissed because the defendant failed to demonstrate reasonable prospects of success on any pleaded ground: the plaintiff had locus (Management Committee not separate from Incorporated Owners), the Amended Defence did not plead Lucas-Box meanings or fair comment with required clarity, malice was not properly pleaded or proved to defeat privilege, the trial's assessments of damages and costs were within legal principles and there was no error of law warranting appellate intervention.

Citation
徐偉業 v. 東廬大樓業主立案法團
Parties
Plaintiff: Incorporated Owners
Court
District Court
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
10 November 2014
Case Number
DCCJ3333/2011
Procedural Posture
Defamation / Application for Leave to Appeal (post Trial)
Outcome
application for leave to appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Qualified Privilege, Malice, Lucas Box Pleading Rule, Exemplary Damages, Costs
Source Language
EN
Defamation Civil Procedure Damages Appeals Qualified Privilege Malice Lucas Box Pleading Rule Exemplary Damages +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 10 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Incorporated Owners

Plaintiff

Procedural Posture

Defamation / Application for Leave to Appeal (post Trial)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 whether leave to appeal has a reasonable prospect of success
  2. 2 whether the plaintiff had locus to sue (Incorporated Owners v Management Committee)
  3. 3 whether defendant pleaded a Lucas-Box meaning or fair comment with sufficient clarity

Ratio Decidendi

Leave to appeal was dismissed because the defendant failed to demonstrate reasonable prospects of success on any pleaded ground: the plaintiff had locus (Management Committee not separate from Incorporated Owners), the Amended Defence did not plead Lucas-Box meanings or fair comment with required clarity, malice was not properly pleaded or proved to defeat privilege, the trial's assessments of damages and costs were within legal principles and there was no error of law warranting appellate intervention.

Court Disposition

application for leave to appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Leave to appeal dismissed
  • Defendant to pay plaintiff's costs of this leave application assessed at $60,000 HKD