Search judgments by proposition, citation, court, judge or legal topic, then move directly into the source-grounded case analysis.
Results update automatically as you type.
Hong Kong decisions
Decisions matching the current search
Assessment of damages in a defamation claim. The court awarded HK$200,000 general damages, refused aggravated damages, and granted an injunction and costs.
The writ and particulars failed to plead the fundamental elements of a defamation claim (no specific defamatory words, no pleaded publication to third parties); the complained-of documents were internal disciplinary communications attractive of qualified privilege which claimant did not rebut with evidence of malice; the claim was therefore frivolous/vexatious and an abuse of process and must be struck out.
Source excerpt
Assessment of damages in a libel action arising from WhatsApp publications. The court awarded HK$180,000 general damages and refused exemplary damages.
The court refused leave to file late pleadings, entered default judgment for libel, and held the defendants' pleaded defences disclosed no reasonable defence.
Defamation and malicious falsehood case about a press conference on suspected Cap. 599F breaches. The court dismissed defamation, but found two malicious falsehoods and awarded HK$10,000.
The second out‑of‑time application was dismissed because the delay (over four months) was serious, no explanation for the delay was provided despite repeated direction, and the applicant failed to identify any error in the 2023 or 2025 orders or any arguable grounds of appeal; even if the 2025 order were set aside the first (already withdrawn) application and the original grounds lack any prospect of success (the first was over a year late with no explanation). The application was therefore abusive and frivolous and costs were ordered in favour of the plaintiff to be assessed on a compensator…
Source excerpt
The court struck out the claim against the third defendant because the statement of claim failed to disclose a reasonable cause of action, contained serious allegations without necessary factual particulars, amounted to frivolous/malicious and abusive litigation, and the plaintiff had not obtained the High Court's permission under section 69 of the Mental Health Ordinance; accordingly the proceedings against the third defendant were dismissed and costs awarded to the third defendant.
Source excerpt
The District Court dismissed a strike-out application, holding that the sole proprietor had authorized the action brought in the business name before commencement.
The District Court stayed a defamation action pending a related probate case, finding overlapping issues about the original will and that a stay was fair and cost-efficient.
The District Court entered default judgment for the plaintiff in a defamation and malicious falsehood action, granted a Zello-limited injunction, and left damages to assessment.
Explore more
