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

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

The court held the defendant's statements in the Original Recording were defamatory in their natural and ordinary meaning; although the occasion was one of qualified privilege, the privilege was defeated because the defendant acted with dominant improper motive or recklessness (malice) and lacked a factual basis for assertions about the plaintiff, so the defendant is liable for the Original Recording; however the defendant is not liable for the Edited Recording because he could not reasonably have foreseen republication or substantial adverse editing that changed the meaning.

Citation
CHRISTINE DIAZ also known as CHRISTINE SAMSON v. CHOI JEFFREY TSE FU
Parties
Plaintiff: Ms Diaz; Defendant: Mr Choi
Court
District Court
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
5 February 2016
Case Number
DCCJ1323/2013
Procedural Posture
Defamation / Judgment
Outcome
Claim allowed in part: defendant liable for defamation arising from the Original Recording; defendant not liable for the Edited Recording.
Legal Topics
Qualified Privilege, Malice, Publication and Republication, Meaning and Context of Words, Liability for Edited Republication
Source Language
EN
Defamation Tort Injunctions Evidence Qualified Privilege Malice Publication and Republication Meaning and Context of Words +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 5 Authorities cited 7 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Ms Diaz

Plaintiff

Mr Choi

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Defamation / Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether statements in the Original Recording were defamatory of the plaintiff
  2. 2 Whether those statements were protected by qualified privilege
  3. 3 Whether privilege was lost through malice

Ratio Decidendi

The court held the defendant's statements in the Original Recording were defamatory in their natural and ordinary meaning; although the occasion was one of qualified privilege, the privilege was defeated because the defendant acted with dominant improper motive or recklessness (malice) and lacked a factual basis for assertions about the plaintiff, so the defendant is liable for the Original Recording; however the defendant is not liable for the Edited Recording because he could not reasonably have foreseen republication or substantial adverse editing that changed the meaning.

Court Disposition

Claim allowed in part: defendant liable for defamation arising from the Original Recording; defendant not liable for the Edited Recording.

Orders

  • Defendant to pay general damages of $10,000 to the plaintiff
  • Injunction restraining the defendant from publishing, distributing or disseminating the defamatory words made against the plaintiff in the audio recording made on 27 August 2012 or words of the same or similar meaning in any language