Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Meaning of publication

Legal area

Court

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).
29 Dec 2021

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

Citation

[2021] HKCFI 3884
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA1963/2014

The court held the natural and ordinary meaning of the letter was that the plaintiff was unlawful or had an unlawful status by reason of breaches of company law (including sections 111 and 122 of the predecessor Companies Ordinance); on the facts the defendants proved the substantial truth that the plaintiff had failed to hold valid AGMs, had incorrect annual return dates and had not rectified defaults at the time of publication, and the publication was made on an occasion of qualified privilege (defendants had duty/interest to notify relevant bodies); malice was not established; accordingly…
10 Dec 2021

WONG SHING v. CHEUNG HING

Citation

[2021] HKDC 1438
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ1567/2018

The Statement, read in its context, was defamatory in imputing that the plaintiff taught the School's tradition without permission and was unfit to teach; the defendant proved the substantial truth of the factual imputations (teaching without permission and being expelled) and established fair comment in relation to opinion imputations based on matters of public interest and honest belief; Reynolds-type defence was not available as it was not pleaded; therefore publication was not unlawful and the plaintiff's claim is dismissed with costs order nisi in favour of the defendant.
1 Apr 2019

DR CHAN HIN KEUNG HENRY v. APPLE DAILY LTD AND OTHERS

Citation

[2019] HKDC 462
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ1474/2013

The court refused to vary the costs order nisi because the failed issues pursued by the defendants did not cause a significant increase in the length or cost of the proceedings given overlap with the successful Reynolds privilege defence, and the defendants' conduct (including failure to reply to pre-action letters and late abandonment of some defences) was not unreasonable; accordingly the defendants were entitled to their costs and the order nisi was made absolute.
31 Oct 2014

THE CHAMBER OF HONG KONG COMPUTER INDUSTRY COMPANY LTD v. SHEA KAI CHUEN

Citation

THE CHAMBER OF HONG KONG COMPUTER INDUSTRY COMPANY LTD v. SHEA KAI CHUEN
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA2102/2012

The contested passages, read in context, did not bear the wide defamatory meanings alleged; where they did bear potentially adverse meanings the defendant proved the underlying facts (substantial truth) and, alternatively, the statements were honest comment on a matter of public interest. No evidence of malice was established. Accordingly the plaintiff's claim failed and was dismissed with costs to the defendant.
24 Nov 2006

TSANG HIN MO v. KAM KWOK WAI AND ANOTHER

Citation

TSANG HIN MO v. KAM KWOK WAI AND ANOTHER
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ1401/2005

The notices were defamatory because the words, in their natural and ordinary meaning, conveyed deliberate misappropriation and dishonesty by the plaintiff; justification failed because the plaintiff acted under instruction of the organizer and returned the souvenir, so the defendants were liable for defamation and damages were awarded to the plaintiff.
5 Mar 2003

NEXT MAGAZINE PUBLISHING LTD AND ANOTHER v. MA CHING FAT

Citation

NEXT MAGAZINE PUBLISHING LTD AND ANOTHER v. MA CHING FAT
Court

Court of Final Appeal
Case number

FACV5/2002

The majority held there was insufficient evidence to permit a properly directed jury to find malice or lack of honest belief against the 1st and 2nd defendants; the article was at most fair comment based on the facts disclosed and the defence succeeded, so the trial verdicts and awards in favour of the plaintiff were set aside and judgment entered for the 1st and 2nd defendants; re-trial was unnecessary in view of the lack of evidence of lack of honest belief and the passage of time, applying the Cheng v. Tse honest‑belief standard.
2 Jul 2002

ASIA TELEVISION LTD. v. ORIENTAL DAILY PUBLISHER LTD. AND OTHERS

Citation

ASIA TELEVISION LTD. v. ORIENTAL DAILY PUBLISHER LTD. AND OTHERS
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA6124/2000

Refused leave to add paragraphs 7(vi), 8(f) and 10(b) because the article was not reasonably capable of the broad general meaning pleaded at 7(vi); the subsequent apology could not be used to prove that unpleaded meaning and therefore paragraph 8(f) was inadmissible; and paragraph 10(b) sought mitigation based on specific and subsequent conduct which is inadmissible under established authorities.
14 Jul 2000

ORIENTAL PRESS GROUP LTD AND ANOTHER v. NEXT MAGAZINE PUBLISHING LTD AND OTHERS

Citation

ORIENTAL PRESS GROUP LTD AND ANOTHER v. NEXT MAGAZINE PUBLISHING LTD AND OTHERS
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA11900/1995

Judge held the article was incapable of referring to the 1st Plaintiff so the no‑case application succeeded in respect of P1; the exemplary damages issue was not supported by evidence of a gain‑loss weighing and was withdrawn; the malice issue was supported by cumulative evidence and was left to the jury.
8 Jun 2000

NEXT MAGAZINE PUBLISHING LIMITED AND OTHERS v. ORIENTAL DAILY PUBLISHER LIMITED

Citation

NEXT MAGAZINE PUBLISHING LIMITED AND OTHERS v. ORIENTAL DAILY PUBLISHER LIMITED
Court

Court of Final Appeal
Case number

FACV19/1999

The Court allowed the appeal, holding that the trial judge correctly identified the single natural and ordinary meaning of the publication (that the plaintiff quoted Mr Cheng out of context to attack him) thereby rejecting the 'falsely reported' meaning; the Court of Appeal erred in ordering a new trial because the issue was not left unresolved and the Diplock/Charleston principles govern judge-alone libel trials.