28 Oct 2024
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.
17 May 2023
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.
7 Jul 2022
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.
21 May 2021
The court found the 3rd Words to be defamatory of the plaintiff, that the defendant failed to justify the key imputations (notably alleged wrongful procurement of termination and unethical practices) and failed the fair comment defence because the matters were internal to a team and not of public interest; accordingly judgment for the plaintiff entered on the libel claim arising from the 3rd Words and remedies (injunctions, removal, damages, interest and costs) were awarded; the 1st Words were private and not sufficiently serious and the 2nd Words were not defamatory in the pleaded senses.
30 Apr 2021
The application for leave to appeal is refused because the judge below correctly found the defendant established the defences of justification (substantial truth) in respect of Statement 2 and 5 and fair comment for Statement 5 on the evidence and pleadings, and the applicant failed to show any reasonably arguable ground of appeal.
21 Dec 2018
The Relevant Words were defamatory but the defendant established reply-to-attack qualified privilege because the plaintiff (and a co-speaker) attacked the defendant's conduct and integrity at the AGM, the email remarks were fairly relevant responses, and the dominant motive of the defendant was to clear his name (no malice); accordingly the qualified privilege defence succeeds and the plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
3 Sept 2018
Leave to re-amend the defence was refused because the application was very late with no adequate explanation, the deficiencies had been pointed out previously and not addressed, the defendants (through counsel) displayed a cavalier attitude inconsistent with CJR objectives, the proposed amendments were unnecessary or unclear and could disrupt fair and expeditious trial management; therefore the summonses were dismissed.
9 Jan 2018
Court held the Poster was defamatory of individual MC members (reasonable readers would understand it to refer to each member); the plaintiff failed to justify or establish honest comment or qualified privilege for the Poster and the defendant’s qualified privilege defence to the Letter succeeded because the Letter was a relevant reply to the Poster and the defendants were not actuated by malice; plaintiff's libel claim was dismissed and defendants' counterclaim succeeded, with awards of general damages to the defendants as assessed.
3 Feb 2017
The court held the article, read in context, conveyed defamatory imputations that the plaintiff was foolish, stupid and untrustworthy and that following his betting formula would cause ruin; the defendants failed to prove their Lucas Box meanings or to plead and prove particulars supporting justification, honest comment or qualified privilege; accordingly judgment for plaintiff on liability and award of general damages of HK$100,000, no aggravated damages, interest at judgment rate from date of judgment, and costs nisi in favour of plaintiff.
22 Nov 2016
The Subject Letter, read in its full context by the hypothetical reasonable reader (the building owners), did not bear the defamatory meanings alleged; alternatively, even if such meanings were available, the publication was protected by qualified privilege because it was a bona fide reply to attacks on the management committee and was not published with malice. Accordingly the plaintiffs' libel claim is dismissed.