CHRISTINE DIAZ also known as CHRISTINE SAMSON v. CHOI JEFFREY TSE FU

CHRISTINE DIAZ also known as CHRISTINE SAMSON v. CHOI JEFFREY TSE FU

Leave to appeal was refused because the defendant demonstrated no reasonable prospects of success on any intended ground: the damages assessment did not rest on publication to the plaintiff; factual findings on defamatory meaning and malice were supportable and entitled to appellate caution; the Horrocks test justified inferring recklessness/malice; and an injunction was appropriate given the defendant's propensity to name artists, therefore costs follow the event.

Citation
CHRISTINE DIAZ also known as CHRISTINE SAMSON v. CHOI JEFFREY TSE FU
Parties
Plaintiff: Ms Diaz; Defendant: Defendant
Court
District Court
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
23 November 2016
Case Number
DCCJ1323/2013
Procedural Posture
Defamation / Application for Leave to Appeal (summons)
Outcome
Application for leave to appeal refused; defendant's summons dated 26 February 2016 dismissed; costs ordered against defendant (costs shall follow the event).
Legal Topics
Publication, Assessment of Damages, Malice, Qualified Privilege, Injunctive Relief, Appealability
Source Language
EN
Defamation Injunction Civil Procedure Costs Discovery Publication Assessment of Damages Malice +3 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 5 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Ms Diaz

Plaintiff

Defendant

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Defamation / Application for Leave to Appeal (summons)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether damages assessment was wrongly based on publication of the Original Recording to the plaintiff
  2. 2 Whether the Original Recording was effectively published by disclosure in proceedings
  3. 3 Whether the impugned statements bore defamatory meaning

Ratio Decidendi

Leave to appeal was refused because the defendant demonstrated no reasonable prospects of success on any intended ground: the damages assessment did not rest on publication to the plaintiff; factual findings on defamatory meaning and malice were supportable and entitled to appellate caution; the Horrocks test justified inferring recklessness/malice; and an injunction was appropriate given the defendant's propensity to name artists, therefore costs follow the event.

Court Disposition

Application for leave to appeal refused; defendant's summons dated 26 February 2016 dismissed; costs ordered against defendant (costs shall follow the event).

Orders

  • Refuse defendant's application for leave to appeal
  • Dismiss the defendant's summons dated 26 February 2016