YOKVIEW CO LTD v. LO YING KIT HENRY t/a AGT AND OTHERS

YOKVIEW CO LTD v. LO YING KIT HENRY t/a AGT AND OTHERS

Leave to appeal was refused because the defendants failed to show a reasonable prospect of success or any other reason in the interests of justice under section 63A(2); the trial judge preferred the plaintiff's evidence on the balance of probabilities, found the defendants' procedural complaints about overseas witnesses unjustified, and upheld the assessment of damages, so no arguable ground to grant leave existed.

Citation
YOKVIEW CO LTD v. LO YING KIT HENRY t/a AGT AND OTHERS
Parties
Plaintiff: Yokview Company Limited; 1st Defendant: Lo Ying Kit Henry trading as AGT; 2nd Defendant: Tiffany Ho; 3rd Defendant: Lo Ma Suet Lan Monica
Court
District Court
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
22 November 2011
Case Number
DCCJ5136/2009
Procedural Posture
Civil Action for Libel (defamation) / Application for Leave to Appeal Following Trial Judgment
Outcome
Leave to appeal refused for both the 1st and 3rd Defendants
Legal Topics
Libel, Leave to Appeal, Default Judgment, Witness Attendance, Assessment of Damages
Source Language
EN
Defamation Civil Procedure Injunctions Damages Costs Libel Leave to Appeal Default Judgment +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 3 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Yokview Company Limited

Plaintiff

Lo Ying Kit Henry trading as AGT

1st Defendant

Tiffany Ho

2nd Defendant

Lo Ma Suet Lan Monica

3rd Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Action for Libel (defamation) / Application for Leave to Appeal Following Trial Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether leave to appeal should be granted under section 63A(2) District Court Ordinance
  2. 2 Whether the trial judge's factual findings were open to reasonable challenge
  3. 3 Whether failure to call overseas customers or staff justified setting aside findings

Ratio Decidendi

Leave to appeal was refused because the defendants failed to show a reasonable prospect of success or any other reason in the interests of justice under section 63A(2); the trial judge preferred the plaintiff's evidence on the balance of probabilities, found the defendants' procedural complaints about overseas witnesses unjustified, and upheld the assessment of damages, so no arguable ground to grant leave existed.

Court Disposition

Leave to appeal refused for both the 1st and 3rd Defendants

Orders

  • Refused leave to appeal as sought by the 1st and 3rd Defendants
  • Existing injunctions against the 1st and 3rd Defendants affirmed