LIU KWOK FAI ALVAN AND ANOTHER v. WOLF RENE KARL AND ANOTHER

LIU KWOK FAI ALVAN AND ANOTHER v. WOLF RENE KARL AND ANOTHER

Leave to appeal was refused because the Court of Appeal found the trial judge had considered the pleaded case of malice, had positively found the defendants honestly believed there was damage and that the dominant motive for the letter was legitimate (response to management issues), and therefore the defence of qualified privilege was not defeated and the intended appeal had no reasonable prospect of success.

Citation
LIU KWOK FAI ALVAN AND ANOTHER v. WOLF RENE KARL AND ANOTHER
Parties
1st Plaintiff: LIU KWOK FAI ALVAN; 2nd Plaintiff: HUI LAI LIN; 1st Defendant: WOLF RENE KARL; 2nd Defendant: WOLF MATTHEWS DEBBIE
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
7 August 2015
Case Number
HCMP1510/2015
Procedural Posture
Defamation / Application for Leave to Appeal (court of Appeal)
Outcome
Leave to appeal refused
Legal Topics
Qualified Privilege, Malice, Leave to Appeal, Assessment of Costs
Source Language
EN
Defamation Civil Procedure Costs Qualified Privilege Malice Leave to Appeal Assessment of Costs

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 2 Authorities cited 1 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

LIU KWOK FAI ALVAN

1st Plaintiff

HUI LAI LIN

2nd Plaintiff

WOLF RENE KARL

1st Defendant

WOLF MATTHEWS DEBBIE

2nd Defendant

Procedural Posture

Defamation / Application for Leave to Appeal (court of Appeal)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the trial judge failed to make findings on pleaded malice (dominant motive of spite/ill‑will)
  2. 2 Whether qualified privilege was defeated by malice
  3. 3 Whether the intended appeal had a reasonable prospect of success

Ratio Decidendi

Leave to appeal was refused because the Court of Appeal found the trial judge had considered the pleaded case of malice, had positively found the defendants honestly believed there was damage and that the dominant motive for the letter was legitimate (response to management issues), and therefore the defence of qualified privilege was not defeated and the intended appeal had no reasonable prospect of success.

Court Disposition

Leave to appeal refused

Orders

  • Leave to appeal refused
  • Costs to defendants assessed at HK$350,000 on a gross sum basis with HK$265,000 allowed for counsel fees