Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Fair comment

Legal area

Court

9 Mar 2026

NUME LTD v. YUEN HOI MAN

Citation

[2026] HKCFI 1302
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA192/2021

On the balance of probabilities defendant established the substantial truth (justification) of the core imputation that plaintiff fell within the statutory definition of a "beauty parlour" under Cap.599F and operated in breach of the specified closure direction during the Specified Period; accordingly the defamation claim failed. However two discrete asserted imputations were false (that plaintiff received subsidies under the Scheme and that "including its doctors" all were liable as managers) and were published recklessly; malicious falsehood therefore established in respect of those two fal…
7 Jan 2026

PET LAND AND ANOTHER v. CHOW PO CHU AND ANOTHER

Citation

[2026] HKDC 56
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ4216/2022

The court found on the balance of probabilities that the 2nd Defendant alone published the impugned material; the statements (post and Comments 1-3) were defamatory; the 2nd Defendant knew the veterinary diagnosis and causation were uncertain and nonetheless published assertions of fact that bathing caused aspiration pneumonia, thereby demonstrating malice which defeats qualified privilege and renders malicious falsehood established; fair comment similarly fails where statements were not based on true or privileged facts; Comment 4 was not published with malice and was privileged; consequenti…
30 May 2025

GCGC LTD v. FRANK YE JUN AND ANOTHER

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 1987
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA565/2023

The court found P had standing as the umbrella governance company and had established a good arguable case of defamatory publications and intention to repeat; no material non-disclosure was shown that would justify setting aside the 26/7 Leave or the ex parte injunction; qualified privilege, justification and fair comment defences were unlikely or not reasonably anticipated; Hong Kong was the appropriate forum; accordingly the Summons was dismissed in its entirety, the 26/7 Leave stood, and the ex parte Injunction Order was continued (regrant not necessary but would have been ordered).
24 Mar 2025

李麗紅對吳燕芬

Citation

[2025] HKDC 478
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ1817/2019

Five of the six passages (paragraphs 1,3,4,5 and 6) carried natural meanings that were defamatory; paragraph 2 was not defamatory. Defendant failed to plead Lucas-Box meanings and did not provide required particulars for a justification or fair comment defence, so those defences failed. However the communication was made in the context of an internal investigation to the school board and its investigative committee, which constituted a qualified privileged occasion; defendant's primary purpose aligned with that occasion and there was insufficient evidence of malice or abuse of the occasion. C…
17 Feb 2023

LAM CHEUK TING v. HO KWAN YIU

Citation

[2023] HKCFI 454
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA2127/2019

Although the Unless Order did not impose an express sanction, the defendant made a deliberate decision not to apply within the prescribed time, failed to provide acceptable explanations or a substantial change of circumstances to justify extension, and consequently the court declined to extend time or order a jury trial and dismissed the summons.
11 Nov 2022

CHO KWAI CHEE v. CONVOY GLOBAL HOLDINGS LTD AND OTHERS

Citation

[2022] HKCFI 3406
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA463/2021

The application to order HCA 463/2021 to be tried immediately after HCA 399/2018 (or to stay it pending that trial) was dismissed because the degree of overlap was not shown to be sufficiently substantial at this stage to justify sequencing or a stay, the application was premature given the paucity of identified common witnesses and documents, and the proposed order would cause undue delay and potential prejudice to the defamation claimant; consequential case management directions were left open.
11 Nov 2022

CONVOY COLLATERAL LTD v. CHO KWAI CHEE (also known as CHO KWAI CHEE ROY) AND OTHERS

Citation

[2022] HKCFI 3406
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA399/2018

The application to try HCA 463/2021 immediately after HCA 399/2018 and to admit evidence from HCA 399/2018 into HCA 463/2021 was dismissed because the degree of overlap was not sufficiently substantial at this stage to justify sequencing or a stay; the application was premature given lack of discovery and identified witnesses/documents, and sequencing would cause unfair delay and complexity to the defamation claim (the overlap was principally limited to potential impact on damages, which alone did not justify the orders sought).
7 Jul 2022

THE INCORPORATED OWNERS OF ALLWAY GARDENS v. LAM YUEN PUN

Citation

[2022] HKDC 608
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ4624/2018

Court found insufficient evidence that the defendant published the 2nd Document; held the 1st and 3rd Words would reasonably be understood as imputing a secret deal and rigged tender (defamatory); defendant failed to discharge burden for justification, failed objective and subjective stages of fair comment because factual basis was unproven and conduct showed malice; qualified privilege defeated by malice; awarded HK$80,000 in damages and costs to plaintiff.
27 May 2022

HONG KONG FAR INFRARED RAYS ASSOCIATION LTD v. LAM HONG NAM AND ANOTHER

Citation

[2022] HKCFI 1565
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA1963/2014

The plaintiff's out-of-time application to vary the costs order nisi was dismissed for failure to justify the delay by affidavit; the court exercised its costs discretion, considered Calderbank/open letters and parties' conduct, declined to vary the existing order nisi (leaving the plaintiff to pay 80% of defendants' costs) and dismissed the defendants' applications to increase costs to 100% while awarding costs of the summonses accordingly.
29 Apr 2022

TSUI WAI YIP v. LAM MO CHIU

Citation

[2022] HKDC 385
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ4878/2017

Leave to appeal was refused because the applicant offered no reasonable prospect of success: the judge properly read the statements in context, found the defendant's defences of justification, fair comment and qualified privilege established on the evidence, found no malice to defeat privilege, and the applicant's grounds amounted to disagreement with findings of fact rather than arguable legal error; accordingly the summons was dismissed, stay refused and costs ordered to the defendant (taxed if not agreed).