Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Defamatory meaning

Legal area

Court

1 Jun 2022

吳銳堂對陳志強

Citation

[2022] HKDC 577
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ5924/2019

The defendant's statements in the 19 June 2012 letter were made in the course of legitimate committee business and were based on facts the defendant honestly believed; there was no evidence of malice or of a lack of factual basis sufficient to defeat qualified (occasioned) privilege, therefore the defence of qualified privilege succeeds and the plaintiff's defamation claim fails. The court exercises its costs discretion to order the plaintiff to pay 50% of the defendant's costs.
3 Jul 2018

JONATHAN LU AND OTHERS v. PAUL CHAN MO PO AND ANOTHER

Citation

[2018] HKCFA 32
Court

Court of Final Appeal
Case number

FACV13/2017

Because no clear overall winner emerged and both parties bore responsibility for the problems on malice which led to appeals, the Court made no order as to costs before the trial judge, the Court of Appeal and this Court; however the Plaintiffs must bear the costs of the qualified privilege issue on appeal to the Court of Appeal and must pay the Defendants' costs of the application to vary the order nisi.
16 Mar 2015

LIU KWOK FAI ALVAN AND ANOTHER v. WOLF RENE KARL AND ANOTHER

Citation

LIU KWOK FAI ALVAN AND ANOTHER v. WOLF RENE KARL AND ANOTHER
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ3204/2013

The court found the Subject Paragraph, read in context, referred to the owners of Houses A, C and D including the plaintiffs and was defamatory by imputing deliberate vandalism (criminal damage), but held the defendants' Letter was published on a privileged occasion (response to a Joint Circulation Letter concerning management) and the plaintiffs failed to prove malice; qualified privilege therefore protected the defendants and the claim was dismissed.
5 Jun 2013

WONG WAI KAY v. HONG KONG ECONOMIC JOURNAL COMPANY LTD AND ANOTHER

Citation

WONG WAI KAY v. HONG KONG ECONOMIC JOURNAL COMPANY LTD AND ANOTHER
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA1385/2010

Although defendants succeeded in the action, substantial additional trial time and expense resulted from issues on which the defendants failed; the defendants' pre-trial offers did not carry sufficient weight to alter the exercise of discretion. Therefore a split costs order is justified: defendants awarded half of the costs of the trial and, subject to that, two-thirds of the costs of the action, to be paid by the plaintiff to the defendants and taxed if not agreed.
13 Feb 2008

WONG WING HO v. CHONG LAI WAH AND ANOTHER

Citation

WONG WING HO v. CHONG LAI WAH AND ANOTHER
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV212/2007

The Court allowed the appeal, holding it was not plain and obvious that the two letters were incapable of bearing a defamatory meaning; on the correct test the pleaded meanings were arguable and the statement of claim should not have been struck out; the individual defendants were arguably involved in authorising/publication and the claim must proceed, with costs to the plaintiff.
16 Mar 2007

KWOK LAI KWAN v. MA GUN FAT

Citation

KWOK LAI KWAN v. MA GUN FAT
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ1088/2006

The Notice, read as a whole, was insulting and nonsensical but did not convey an imputable defamatory meaning (such as unchastity) to right‑thinking members of society and, crucially, did not sufficiently identify the Plaintiff to a reasonable reader; therefore the Plaintiff failed to establish actionable libel and her claims were dismissed.
21 Dec 2005

GURUNG GANGA BAHADUR v. SECURICOR GURKHA SERVICES LTD

Citation

GURUNG GANGA BAHADUR v. SECURICOR GURKHA SERVICES LTD
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA1851/2005

The statement that the plaintiff was late for work because of a traffic jam is not capable of being defamatory nor capable of defamatory innuendo; therefore the defamation claim was bound to fail and must be struck out.
6 Mar 2003

STEPHEN FINLEY v. HOME & HOME PROPERTIES LTD. AND ANOTHER

Citation

STEPHEN FINLEY v. HOME & HOME PROPERTIES LTD. AND ANOTHER
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA11244/1996

There was sufficient evidence for the jury to determine publication of the second letter; both letters, read together, were capable of bearing the pleaded defamatory meaning; fair comment could not be left to the jury because the defendant could not prove the underlying facts; the letters were published on occasions of qualified privilege; and the defendant was granted leave to amend the defence to plead qualified privilege in relation to the second letter.
2 Feb 2000

TSE WAI CHUN PAUL v. ALBERT CHENG AND ANOTHER

Citation

TSE WAI CHUN PAUL v. ALBERT CHENG AND ANOTHER
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV170/1998

The Court held the test for malice is the same for fair comment and qualified privilege: honesty of belief is a necessary element but may be outweighed by proof that an improper motive was the dominant motive; the trial judge correctly directed the jury on malice, motive and credibility; there was sufficient evidence of malice defeating the fair comment defence for the 1st and 3rd defendants; the appeal is dismissed.
22 Jun 1998

LING NAM HERBALIST KOON AND OTHERS v. RADIO TELEVISION HONG KONG

Citation

LING NAM HERBALIST KOON AND OTHERS v. RADIO TELEVISION HONG KONG
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA263/1997

The claim was dismissed because the Plaintiffs failed to prove that the broadcast remarks were referrable to them (identification not established); consequently liability in defamation and malicious falsehood could not be established (and, independently, plaintiffs failed to prove falsity and malice and their witnesses were unreliable).