HONG KONG TELEVISION NETWORK LTD (formerly known as CITY TELECOM (HK) LTD) AND ANOTHER v. ASIA TELEVISION LTD AND ANOTHER

HONG KONG TELEVISION NETWORK LTD (formerly known as CITY TELECOM (HK) LTD) AND ANOTHER v. ASIA TELEVISION LTD AND ANOTHER

The court found the broadcasts conveyed imputations that plaintiffs misappropriated ATV confidential materials, acted dishonestly and unethically and obtained unfair advantage; defendants failed to prove justification because plaintiffs' witnesses were credible and there was no evidence of misappropriation; fair comment failed because the underlying facts were not true; accordingly judgment entered for plaintiffs and compensatory damages of HK$1,300,000 awarded, with costs to plaintiffs to be taxed if not agreed.

Citation
HONG KONG TELEVISION NETWORK LTD (formerly known as CITY TELECOM (HK) LTD) AND ANOTHER v. ASIA TELEVISION LTD AND ANOTHER
Parties
1st Plaintiff: Hong Kong Television Network Limited (formerly City Telecom (HK) Limited); 2nd Plaintiff: Ricky Wong Wai Kay; 1st Defendant: Asia Television Limited; 2nd Defendant: James Pan Yu Shing
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
20 November 2015
Case Number
HCA2217/2012
Procedural Posture
Libel / Defamation Action / Judgment at First Instance
Outcome
Judgment for plaintiffs
Legal Topics
Libel, Justification Defence, Fair Comment, Damages, Adjournment Applications, Costs
Source Language
EN
Defamation Civil Litigation Media Law Libel Justification Defence Fair Comment Damages Adjournment Applications +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 7 Authorities cited 10 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Hong Kong Television Network Limited (formerly City Telecom (HK) Limited)

1st Plaintiff

Ricky Wong Wai Kay

2nd Plaintiff

Asia Television Limited

1st Defendant

James Pan Yu Shing

2nd Defendant

Procedural Posture

Libel / Defamation Action / Judgment at First Instance

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the broadcast statements were defamatory (libelous)
  2. 2 Whether defendants established defence of justification
  3. 3 Whether defendants established defence of fair or honest comment

Ratio Decidendi

The court found the broadcasts conveyed imputations that plaintiffs misappropriated ATV confidential materials, acted dishonestly and unethically and obtained unfair advantage; defendants failed to prove justification because plaintiffs' witnesses were credible and there was no evidence of misappropriation; fair comment failed because the underlying facts were not true; accordingly judgment entered for plaintiffs and compensatory damages of HK$1,300,000 awarded, with costs to plaintiffs to be taxed if not agreed.

Court Disposition

Judgment for plaintiffs

Orders

  • Judgment for plaintiffs against defendants for compensatory damages of HK$1,300,000
  • No exemplary damages awarded