WOO TAK YAN v. LAM SIK CHUEN

WOO TAK YAN v. LAM SIK CHUEN

The Motion was issued in the name of the IO but a management committee member (Lam) could be sued personally; the words complained of were capable of defamatory meanings, but the defendant proved justification in respect of each core category (truth in substance) and established that the Motion was published on an occasion of qualified privilege; plaintiff failed to prove malice defeating privilege; Lam acted in good faith and reasonably such that s29A BMO applies; accordingly the action was dismissed and costs awarded to Lam.

Citation
WOO TAK YAN v. LAM SIK CHUEN
Parties
Plaintiff: Woo; Defendant: Lam
Court
District Court
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
21 December 2011
Case Number
DCCJ5381/2009
Procedural Posture
Defamation / Judgment
Outcome
Action dismissed
Legal Topics
Meaning of Words, Justification (truth) Defence, Qualified Privilege, Malice, Statutory Immunity (s29 a Bmo), Publication, Damages
Source Language
EN
Defamation Building Management Law Civil Procedure Meaning of Words Justification (truth) Defence Qualified Privilege Malice Statutory Immunity (s29 a Bmo) +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 5 Authorities cited 9 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Woo

Plaintiff

Lam

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Defamation / Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether Lam or the Incorporated Owners was the proper defendant
  2. 2 Whether the Motion contained words conveying the alleged defamatory meanings: (a) that plaintiff lied about payment of management fees, (b) that plaintiff breached fiduciary duty as treasurer, (c) that plaintiff circulated pamphlets in the name of the IO without authority
  3. 3 Whether the defence of justification (truth) is established

Ratio Decidendi

The Motion was issued in the name of the IO but a management committee member (Lam) could be sued personally; the words complained of were capable of defamatory meanings, but the defendant proved justification in respect of each core category (truth in substance) and established that the Motion was published on an occasion of qualified privilege; plaintiff failed to prove malice defeating privilege; Lam acted in good faith and reasonably such that s29A BMO applies; accordingly the action was dismissed and costs awarded to Lam.

Court Disposition

Action dismissed

Orders

  • Action dismissed
  • Costs order nisi: Lam to have the costs of the action with certificate to Counsel, to be taxed if not agreed