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

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

The court found the Subject Paragraph, read in context, referred to the owners of Houses A, C and D including the plaintiffs and was defamatory by imputing deliberate vandalism (criminal damage), but held the defendants' Letter was published on a privileged occasion (response to a Joint Circulation Letter concerning management) and the plaintiffs failed to prove malice; qualified privilege therefore protected the defendants and the claim was dismissed.

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
District Court
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
16 March 2015
Case Number
DCCJ3204/2013
Procedural Posture
Defamation / Judgment
Outcome
Plaintiffs' claim dismissed
Legal Topics
Qualified Privilege, Reference/identification (innuendo), Defamatory Meaning, Malice, Pleading Requirements, Evidence Admissibility
Source Language
EN
Defamation Tort Civil Procedure Property / Neighbourhood Disputes Qualified Privilege Reference/identification (innuendo) Defamatory Meaning Malice +2 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 9 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
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 / Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Subject Paragraph referred to the plaintiffs individually or jointly
  2. 2 Whether the words in the Subject Paragraph were defamatory (imputing vandalism/criminal damage)
  3. 3 Whether the defendants were protected by qualified privilege and whether malice defeated that privilege

Ratio Decidendi

The court found the Subject Paragraph, read in context, referred to the owners of Houses A, C and D including the plaintiffs and was defamatory by imputing deliberate vandalism (criminal damage), but held the defendants' Letter was published on a privileged occasion (response to a Joint Circulation Letter concerning management) and the plaintiffs failed to prove malice; qualified privilege therefore protected the defendants and the claim was dismissed.

Court Disposition

Plaintiffs' claim dismissed

Orders

  • Plaintiffs to pay the defendants' costs of this action to be taxed if not agreed, with certificate for Counsel; costs order nisi to become absolute unless varied within 14 days