NG WOON KING v. CHENG KAM WAH AND ANOTHER

NG WOON KING v. CHENG KAM WAH AND ANOTHER

Paragraphs 12 and 13 were struck out because pleading the letters were both pre-action correspondence and absolutely privileged was self-contradictory and obviously unsustainable; paragraph 22 was struck out because legal professional privilege was misapplied to letters not sent to a legal adviser; paragraph 24 was struck out because reliance on statutory provisions treating pre-action letters as pleadings was unsustainable. The remaining pleaded defences did not meet the plain and obvious threshold for striking out.

Citation
[2018] HKDC 491
Parties
Plaintiff: NG WOON KING; 1st Defendant: CHENG KAM WAH; 2nd Defendant: CHENG WAI CHUN
Court
District Court
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
8 May 2018
Case Number
DCCJ2235/2017
Procedural Posture
Defamation / Interlocutory Strike Out Application
Outcome
Application partly allowed: paragraphs 12, 13, 22 and 24 of the Re-Amended Defence struck out; other strike-out requests refused
Legal Topics
Absolute Privilege, Legal Professional Privilege, Justification, Strike Out of Pleadings, Publication, Pleading Particulars, Costs, Case Management
Source Language
EN
Defamation Civil Procedure Evidence Privilege Property Law Absolute Privilege Legal Professional Privilege Justification +5 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 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

NG WOON KING

Plaintiff

CHENG KAM WAH

1st Defendant

CHENG WAI CHUN

2nd Defendant

Procedural Posture

Defamation / Interlocutory Strike Out Application

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether paragraphs of the Re-Amended Defence disclose any reasonable defence or are frivolous or vexatious or an abuse of process
  2. 2 Whether letters before action are protected by absolute privilege
  3. 3 Whether publication to tenant constitutes publication of defamatory matter

Ratio Decidendi

Paragraphs 12 and 13 were struck out because pleading the letters were both pre-action correspondence and absolutely privileged was self-contradictory and obviously unsustainable; paragraph 22 was struck out because legal professional privilege was misapplied to letters not sent to a legal adviser; paragraph 24 was struck out because reliance on statutory provisions treating pre-action letters as pleadings was unsustainable. The remaining pleaded defences did not meet the plain and obvious threshold for striking out.

Court Disposition

Application partly allowed: paragraphs 12, 13, 22 and 24 of the Re-Amended Defence struck out; other strike-out requests refused

Orders

  • Paragraphs 12, 13, 22 and 24 of the Re-Amended Defence be struck out.
  • Order nisi that the 1st and 2nd defendants pay one third of the costs of this application to the plaintiff with certificate for counsel.