JONATHAN LU AND OTHERS v. PAUL CHAN MO-PO AND ANOTHER

JONATHAN LU AND OTHERS v. PAUL CHAN MO-PO AND ANOTHER

On the proved primary facts and surrounding circumstances the court found a common interest in academic integrity, school reputation and attitude to academic dishonesty between the defendants, senior school management and the Year 13 parents; the 1 December email and the 4 December (2nd) email were sent on privileged occasions and, as the jury found no malice in those two publications, qualified privilege protected them; indemnity costs were not justified by the jury's malice findings alone; costs were apportioned with defendants entitled to costs for the qualified privilege submissions and plaintiffs awarded 60% of their remaining costs.

Citation
JONATHAN LU AND OTHERS v. PAUL CHAN MO-PO AND ANOTHER
Parties
1st Plaintiff: Jonathan Lu; 2nd Plaintiff: 2nd Plaintiff (twin sister of 1st Plaintiff); 3rd Plaintiff: 3rd Plaintiff (father and member of Board of Governors); 1st Defendant: Paul Chan; 2nd Defendant: 2nd Defendant (wife of 1st Defendant)
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
7 October 2015
Case Number
HCA370/2012
Procedural Posture
Defamation / Post‑trial Judgment on Qualified Privilege and Costs Following Jury Verdicts
Outcome
Judgment for Plaintiffs for damages of HKD 230000; court holds 1 December and 4 December (2nd) emails were published on occasions of qualified privilege and protected (no malice found for those two emails); costs apportioned.
Legal Topics
Qualified Privilege, Malice, Costs and Indemnity Costs, Apportionment of Costs, Judge Vs Jury Functions
Source Language
EN
Defamation Civil Procedure Evidence Qualified Privilege Malice Costs and Indemnity Costs Apportionment of Costs Judge Vs Jury Functions

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 16 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Jonathan Lu

1st Plaintiff

2nd Plaintiff (twin sister of 1st Plaintiff)

2nd Plaintiff

3rd Plaintiff (father and member of Board of Governors)

3rd Plaintiff

Paul Chan

1st Defendant

2nd Defendant (wife of 1st Defendant)

2nd Defendant

Procedural Posture

Defamation / Post‑trial Judgment on Qualified Privilege and Costs Following Jury Verdicts

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the 1 December 2011 email was published on an occasion of qualified privilege
  2. 2 Whether the 4 December 2011 (2nd) email was published on an occasion of qualified privilege
  3. 3 Whether adverse inference should be drawn from the 1st Defendant's failure to give evidence

Ratio Decidendi

On the proved primary facts and surrounding circumstances the court found a common interest in academic integrity, school reputation and attitude to academic dishonesty between the defendants, senior school management and the Year 13 parents; the 1 December email and the 4 December (2nd) email were sent on privileged occasions and, as the jury found no malice in those two publications, qualified privilege protected them; indemnity costs were not justified by the jury's malice findings alone; costs were apportioned with defendants entitled to costs for the qualified privilege submissions and plaintiffs awarded 60% of their remaining costs.

Court Disposition

Judgment for Plaintiffs for damages of HKD 230000; court holds 1 December and 4 December (2nd) emails were published on occasions of qualified privilege and protected (no malice found for those two emails); costs apportioned.

Orders

  • Defendants shall pay 60% of the Plaintiffs' costs, other than the costs of the qualified privilege submissions, with certificate for two counsel
  • Plaintiffs shall pay the Defendants' costs in respect of the qualified privilege submissions, with certificate for two counsel