Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Justification

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…
14 Nov 2025

LAI CHEE YING v. TA KUNG PAO (HONG KONG) LTD

Citation

[2025] HKDC 1949
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ674/2025

The proposed amendments failed to provide the requisite particularity for allegations of corporate malice: identifying 101 articles without specifying the impugned content or the facts from which malice is to be inferred is confusing and prejudicial; pleadings must state specific facts/persons for malice; allowing vague amendments would impede just resolution; therefore leave to amend was refused and the summons dismissed.
24 Jun 2025

HO KWAN YIU v. DENNIS KWOK WING HANG AND OTHERS

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 2788
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA1997/2019

Court allowed the Amendment Summons permitting the plaintiff to amend the Statement of Claim to rely on the 2nd defendant's conviction and sentence; the Court granted the Stay Summons as modified and stayed the entire action pending determination of the 2nd defendant's criminal appeal, with leave to tidy drafting and costs in the cause with certificate for counsel.
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).
28 Feb 2025

LEUNG CHI CHING CANDY v. YEUNG HON SING

Citation

[2025] HKDC 197
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ5079/2015

The Court held that the re-trial limited to malice must proceed on the basis of the DDJ's findings of underlying facts unless overturned by the Court of Appeal; applying the proper subjective test for malice in the context of qualified privilege and considering the additional materials and evidence permitted by the remitter, the plaintiff failed to prove that the defendant did not believe what he published, was reckless as to truth, or had a dominant improper motive; accordingly qualified privilege was not rebutted and the plaintiff's claim was dismissed.
28 Oct 2024

NGAI WAI YEUNG v. LAU YUN FUNG BERTHA

Citation

[2024] HKDC 1811
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ336/2023

It was not plain and obvious that the impugned emails and oral statements could not bear the plaintiff's alleged defamatory meanings; an ordinary reader could infer the pleaded imputations and factual disputes and pleaded particulars of malice existed, so the defendant failed to show the claim was unsustainable and the strike-out application must be dismissed.
14 Jul 2023

LI SAU MUI v. MAN WAI CHEONG

Citation

[2023] HKDC 995
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ4322/2018

The court refused indemnity costs because the defendant failed to show special or unusual features connected to the litigation warranting a more generous basis: although the defendant succeeded on defences, parts of the words were admitted defamatory, the dispute arose from a protracted rivalry and was fact‑sensitive rather than a plainly unmeritorious or vexatious claim, therefore discretion to order indemnity was not appropriately exercised.
17 May 2023

LI SAU MUI v. MAN WAI CHEONG

Citation

[2023] HKDC 620
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ4322/2018

Reading the 8 July letter in context the challenged passages were recognisable as comment/opinion on matters of public interest and related to undisputed facts (the plaintiff's refusal to witness forms and her complaints about others); the defendant established justification and honest comment and the publication was on an occasion of qualified privilege; the plaintiff failed to prove express malice; accordingly the libel claim failed and judgment is entered for the defendant.
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.