NG HIN CHUNG AND ANOTHER v. MOK POON KWONG AND ANOTHER

NG HIN CHUNG AND ANOTHER v. MOK POON KWONG AND ANOTHER

Applying the high threshold for striking‑out, the court held that disputed facts must be assumed in favour of the defendants and that the defendants' pleas of justification and privilege raised triable issues; the plaintiffs' strike‑out application could not succeed at this stage and the defendants were entitled to include the master's transcript in the appeal bundle as a non‑agreed reference.

Citation
[2019] HKCFI 1334
Parties
1st Plaintiff: NG HIN CHUNG; 2nd Plaintiff: CENTRE CHASE INVESTMENT LIMITED; 1st Defendant: MOK POON KWONG; 2nd Defendant: STAR GROUP TRADING LIMITED
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
16 May 2019
Case Number
HCA60/2018
Procedural Posture
Defamation / Decision on Striking‑out Application and Handling of Appeal Bundle/transcript
Outcome
Plaintiffs' application to strike out parts of the defendants' defence dismissed; transcript may be included in appeal bundle as non‑agreed reference.
Legal Topics
Striking Out, Justification, Fair Comment, Qualified Privilege, Lucas Box Pleading Requirement, Admissibility of Transcript
Source Language
EN
Defamation Civil Procedure Building Management Law Striking Out Justification Fair Comment Qualified Privilege Lucas Box Pleading Requirement +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 4 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

NG HIN CHUNG

1st Plaintiff

CENTRE CHASE INVESTMENT LIMITED

2nd Plaintiff

MOK POON KWONG

1st Defendant

STAR GROUP TRADING LIMITED

2nd Defendant

Procedural Posture

Defamation / Decision on Striking‑out Application and Handling of Appeal Bundle/transcript

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether parts of the defendants' defence are plain and obviously unsustainable and should be struck out
  2. 2 Whether the defendants complied with the Lucas‑Box requirement to specify meanings they seek to justify
  3. 3 Whether the master's oral reasons/transcript may be included in the appeal bundle as non‑agreed reference

Ratio Decidendi

Applying the high threshold for striking‑out, the court held that disputed facts must be assumed in favour of the defendants and that the defendants' pleas of justification and privilege raised triable issues; the plaintiffs' strike‑out application could not succeed at this stage and the defendants were entitled to include the master's transcript in the appeal bundle as a non‑agreed reference.

Court Disposition

Plaintiffs' application to strike out parts of the defendants' defence dismissed; transcript may be included in appeal bundle as non‑agreed reference.

Orders

  • Plaintiffs' strike‑out application dismissed.
  • Master's oral reasons/transcript to be included in the appeal bundle as a non‑agreed item.