Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Malicious falsehood

Legal area

Court

9 Jan 2026

莊如芬 v. 黃志輝 AND ANOTHER

Citation

[2026] HKDC 24
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ5245/2025

Service by registered post and delivery to known addresses was valid; defendants did not file a defence so the pleaded facts are treated as admitted; the pleaded words were published, identified the plaintiff and were defamatory; malice supporting malicious falsehood was inferable from pleaded facts; on the evidence there is a real risk of further publication; therefore final judgment is entered for plaintiff with a permanent injunction limited to the Zello app, removal order for the recordings, damages to be assessed and costs awarded.
18 Mar 2025

LAM CHUNG PING AND OTHERS v. CHAN YUET KUEN AND ANOTHER

Citation

[2025] HKDC 476
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ2203/2023

The prayer for "damages on slander on title" in the Amended Statement of Claim is struck out because the pleading failed to plead malice or particulars of malice, thereby disclosing no reasonable cause of action and risking prejudice, embarrassment and delay; the court lawfully exercised its power under Order 18 r19(1) (and alternatively its case management power under Order 1B r1(2)(j)) to strike out that relief sua sponte, while preserving the plaintiffs' right to seek removal of the registered Form A by exercise of the court's inherent jurisdiction.
13 Dec 2023

CHINA CONCRETE COMPANY LTD v. SECRETARY FOR JUSTICE

Citation

[2023] HKCFI 2282
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA997/2022

The amended statement of claim discloses no reasonable cause of action and must be struck out: the ASOC fails to plead essential elements for each tort (no pleaded actual breach of contract, no pleaded unlawful means actionable against third parties, no sufficient facts to infer malice or dishonest motive, and no particularised facts supporting misfeasance intent); declaratory relief amounting to a declaration of non-criminality was inappropriate and prejudicial while criminal prosecutions under the APCO were pending; accordingly the SOC/ASOC are struck out and the civil action dismissed.
30 Jun 2023

CHENG WAN KAAI v. HOSPITAL AUTHORITY

Citation

[2023] HKCFI 1698
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP1312/2022

Both originating summonses dismissed because Dr Chung was lawfully entitled to practise as a registered medical practitioner despite not being on the Specialist Register; s.28 MRO was misconstrued by the plaintiff; the Letter was disclosed with the plaintiff's consent and in any event the allegations were time‑barred; the alleged telephone publications were unparticularised and unproven; defamation and malicious falsehood not established; costs awarded to defendant.
9 Nov 2021

XU YING v. XU WEIHONG

Citation

[2021] HKCA 1670
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CAMP216/2020

The application to vary the costs order nisi was dismissed because the plaintiff was the overall winner and his failure on the malicious falsehood point was not sufficiently separate and substantial to justify any significant reduction, including a 50% reduction, of the costs awarded to him.
28 Sept 2020

MAK CHEUNG CHING v. WONG MEI FONG AND ANOTHER

Citation

[2020] HKCFI 2488
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA254/2016

Plaintiff's claims dismissed because he failed to prove on balance of probabilities that defendants instructed or were principals of the persons who made calls or attended TVB/On Kee; evidence was deficient, largely hearsay and uncorroborated and key witnesses lacked credibility; the 2nd Defendant's counterclaim failed because the Subject Sum was paid as part payment for delivered goods (transaction 9), not induced by fraud, and there was no credible oral offsetting agreement, so no restitution/order for return of the sum.
7 Aug 2020

XU YING v. XU WEIHONG

Citation

[2020] HKCFI 1955
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA2650/2017

Leave for service out of jurisdiction was set aside because plaintiff failed to show a good arguable case of substantial publication in Hong Kong (so no real and substantial tort in jurisdiction), failed to plead or adduce sufficient evidence of pecuniary damage required for malicious falsehood under s.24 DO (no serious issue to be tried), Hong Kong is not clearly and distinctly the forum conveniens given evidence of Mainland publication, and the ex parte application contained deliberate material non-disclosures; accordingly leave was discharged and not re-granted.
24 Apr 2020

LEUNG WING SZE WINS AND ANOTHER v. LI OI LAM otherwise known as SARA LI AND ANOTHER

Citation

[2020] HKDC 238
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ2022/2014

Leave to appeal dismissed because the proposed grounds were largely factual rehashes lacking pinpointed misapprehension of evidence or arguable points of law; no reasonable prospect of success was shown under s63A(2) DCO; District Court has jurisdiction to hear the copyright/tort claims within monetary limits; the defendants were entitled to judgment on their counterclaim and the plaintiffs' leave application was vexatious, warranting dismissal and an award of costs on an indemnity basis.
27 Aug 2018

GOSSIP DAILY LTD v. NEXT MEDIA MAGAZINES LTD AND OTHERS

Citation

[2018] HKCFI 1951
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA305/2018

The arbitration clause in the SPA was clear and wide, expressly covering disputes including non-contractual obligations arising out of or relating to the agreement; the tortious claims arose out of and related to the SPA and therefore fell within the clause; accordingly the requirements of s20 Cap 609 were met and the court was obliged to order a stay of all further proceedings pending arbitration.
30 Oct 2017

KOO MING KOWN v. THE BAPTIST CONVENTION OF HONG KONG operating as PUI CHING PRIMARY SCHOOL

Citation

KOO MING KOWN v. THE BAPTIST CONVENTION OF HONG KONG operating as PUI CHING PRIMARY SCHOOL
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA731/2017

Default judgment was entered for the plaintiff on the libel claim because the defendant’s pleaded defence did not disclose any arguable defence to libel (no particulars of justification and no arguable fair comment), but the court granted retrospective leave and extended time to 6 September 2017 to permit the defendant to defend the malicious falsehood claim; plaintiff to file submissions on injunction and to state whether he pursues apology; defendant ordered to pay plaintiff's costs on an indemnity basis with certificate for two counsel.