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 refused because the plaintiffs failed to demonstrate reasonable prospects of success on any of the 12 grounds; the judge had considered relevant facts and applied the correct legal tests, found qualified privilege available and no dominant improper motive, and concluded there was no reason to vary the costs order nisi; costs follow the event and the costs order nisi was made absolute.

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
9 June 2015
Case Number
DCCJ3204/2013
Procedural Posture
Civil Defamation and Related Proceedings in District Court / Application for Leave to Appeal and Application to Vary Costs Order Nisi (post Judgment)
Outcome
Application for leave to appeal dismissed; application to vary costs order nisi dismissed; costs to defendants; costs order nisi made absolute.
Legal Topics
Qualified Privilege, Malice, Leave to Appeal, Costs Order Nisi, Justification Defence
Source Language
EN
Defamation Civil Procedure Costs Appeal Qualified Privilege Malice Leave to Appeal Costs Order Nisi +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 11 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
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

Civil Defamation and Related Proceedings in District Court / Application for Leave to Appeal and Application to Vary Costs Order Nisi (post Judgment)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether leave to appeal should be granted under s63A(2) District Court Ordinance
  2. 2 Whether the judge failed to consider relevant material facts
  3. 3 Whether the Subject Paragraph was defamatory and whether the defendants had duty to raise vandalism

Ratio Decidendi

Leave to appeal refused because the plaintiffs failed to demonstrate reasonable prospects of success on any of the 12 grounds; the judge had considered relevant facts and applied the correct legal tests, found qualified privilege available and no dominant improper motive, and concluded there was no reason to vary the costs order nisi; costs follow the event and the costs order nisi was made absolute.

Court Disposition

Application for leave to appeal dismissed; application to vary costs order nisi dismissed; costs to defendants; costs order nisi made absolute.

Orders

  • Plaintiffs' application for leave to appeal dismissed
  • Plaintiffs' application to vary the costs order nisi dismissed