PET LAND AND ANOTHER v. CHOW PO CHU AND ANOTHER

PET LAND AND ANOTHER v. CHOW PO CHU AND ANOTHER

The court found on the balance of probabilities that the 2nd Defendant alone published the impugned material; the statements (post and Comments 1-3) were defamatory; the 2nd Defendant knew the veterinary diagnosis and causation were uncertain and nonetheless published assertions of fact that bathing caused aspiration pneumonia, thereby demonstrating malice which defeats qualified privilege and renders malicious falsehood established; fair comment similarly fails where statements were not based on true or privileged facts; Comment 4 was not published with malice and was privileged; consequentially libel and malicious falsehood claims succeed against the 2nd Defendant only, damages and a...

Citation
[2026] HKDC 56
Parties
1st Plaintiff: Pet Land; 2nd Plaintiff: Lee Pui Man; 1st Defendant: Chow Po Chu; 2nd Defendant: Chan Tsz Shan
Court
District Court
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
7 January 2026
Case Number
DCCJ4216/2022
Procedural Posture
Defamation (civil) / Judgment After Trial
Outcome
Claim against 1st Defendant dismissed; claim against 2nd Defendant succeeds; judgment entered for 2nd Plaintiff against 2nd Defendant for HK$130,000 plus interest; mandatory injunction granted to remove specified online material; costs orders made.
Legal Topics
Libel, Qualified Privilege, Fair Comment, Aggravated Damages, Mandatory Injunction, Publication, Publisher Liability
Source Language
EN
Defamation Malicious Falsehood Injunctions Civil Procedure Costs Libel Qualified Privilege Fair Comment +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 4 Authorities cited 4 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Pet Land

1st Plaintiff

Lee Pui Man

2nd Plaintiff

Chow Po Chu

1st Defendant

Chan Tsz Shan

2nd Defendant

Procedural Posture

Defamation (civil) / Judgment After Trial

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the 1st Defendant published the Facebook post/comments
  2. 2 Whether the post/comments were defamatory
  3. 3 Whether the defendants published with malice

Ratio Decidendi

The court found on the balance of probabilities that the 2nd Defendant alone published the impugned material; the statements (post and Comments 1-3) were defamatory; the 2nd Defendant knew the veterinary diagnosis and causation were uncertain and nonetheless published assertions of fact that bathing caused aspiration pneumonia, thereby demonstrating malice which defeats qualified privilege and renders malicious falsehood established; fair comment similarly fails where statements were not based on true or privileged facts; Comment 4 was not published with malice and was privileged; consequentially libel and malicious falsehood claims succeed against the 2nd Defendant only, damages and a...

Court Disposition

Claim against 1st Defendant dismissed; claim against 2nd Defendant succeeds; judgment entered for 2nd Plaintiff against 2nd Defendant for HK$130,000 plus interest; mandatory injunction granted to remove specified online material; costs orders made.

Orders

  • Judgment for 2nd Plaintiff against 2nd Defendant in the sum of HK$130,000 with interest at judgment rate from date of judgment to date of payment
  • Mandatory injunction requiring 2nd Defendant to forthwith remove or cause to be removed the Facebook post and Comments 1 to 3