LEE SAU LAI ALEXANDRETTA AND ANOTHER v. LI SAU SANG

LEE SAU LAI ALEXANDRETTA AND ANOTHER v. LI SAU SANG

Reading the email chains as a whole a reasonable non-naïve reader would find the publications defamatory (they imputed that each plaintiff abused her position to intimidate, oppress and harass staff and engaged in 'witch-hunting' creating 'white terror'). The defence of fair comment failed because the later emails constituted imputations of fact not opinion and the publications were not on a matter of public interest in the sense relied upon. Qualified privilege failed because the emails were sent to many recipients without a corresponding duty/interest and included management and non-union recipients. Justification failed because transcripts and recordings did not objectively support the...

Citation
LEE SAU LAI ALEXANDRETTA AND ANOTHER v. LI SAU SANG
Parties
1st Plaintiff: Lee Sau Lai Alexandretta; 2nd Plaintiff: Qiu Xiao Yan; Defendant: Li Sau Sang
Court
District Court
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
23 March 2015
Case Number
DCCJ2191/2012
Procedural Posture
Defamation (libel) / Judgment Delivered 23 March 2015
Outcome
Judgment for the plaintiffs against the defendant
Legal Topics
Libel, Innuendo, Justification (truth), Fair Comment / Honest Opinion, Qualified Privilege, Malice, Injunction, Damages, Aggravated Damages
Source Language
EN
Defamation Employment Law Civil Remedies Libel Innuendo Justification (truth) Fair Comment / Honest Opinion Qualified Privilege +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 6 Authorities cited 9 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Lee Sau Lai Alexandretta

1st Plaintiff

Qiu Xiao Yan

2nd Plaintiff

Li Sau Sang

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Defamation (libel) / Judgment Delivered 23 March 2015

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the published words were defamatory in their natural and ordinary meaning or by way of innuendo
  2. 2 Whether the words amounted to fair comment on a matter of public interest
  3. 3 Whether the publications were made on an occasion of qualified privilege

Ratio Decidendi

Reading the email chains as a whole a reasonable non-naïve reader would find the publications defamatory (they imputed that each plaintiff abused her position to intimidate, oppress and harass staff and engaged in 'witch-hunting' creating 'white terror'). The defence of fair comment failed because the later emails constituted imputations of fact not opinion and the publications were not on a matter of public interest in the sense relied upon. Qualified privilege failed because the emails were sent to many recipients without a corresponding duty/interest and included management and non-union recipients. Justification failed because transcripts and recordings did not objectively support the...

Court Disposition

Judgment for the plaintiffs against the defendant

Orders

  • Judgment for 1st plaintiff for HK$400,000 with interest at judgment rate from date of writ until payment
  • Judgment for 2nd plaintiff for HK$400,000 with interest at judgment rate from date of writ until payment