Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments | LexChat

Hong Kong Case Law

Qualified privilege

  • 29 Apr 2026

    郭志文 對 機電工程署

    Citation
    [2026] HKDC 730
    Court
    District Court
    Case number
    DCCJ5878/2025

    The writ and particulars failed to plead the fundamental elements of a defamation claim (no specific defamatory words, no pleaded publication to third parties); the complained-of documents were internal disciplinary communications attractive of qualified privilege which claimant did not rebut with evidence of malice; the claim was therefore frivolous/vexatious and an abuse of process and must be struck out.

  • 16 Apr 2026

    DING HING HUI v. ZHENG NENGHUAN AND ANOTHER

    Citation
    [2026] HKCFI 2148
    Court
    Court of First Instance
    Case number
    HCA78/2026

    The defence did not disclose any reasonable defence: the disciplinary decision did not support any finding or implication of bribery so the imputation of bribery was defamatory and not justified by truth or fair comment; qualified privilege did not apply because alleging bribery was not reasonably necessary to the occasion; the defendants failed to give a satisfactory explanation for the delay in filing A/S and Defence and leave was refused; accordingly default judgment was entered on the plaintiff's pleaded claims for orders to publish an apology and to procure withdrawal/clarification of th…

  • 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…

  • 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.

  • 31 Oct 2024

    BRETON JEAN v. HK BELLAWINGS.JET LTD AND OTHERS

    Citation
    [2024] HKDC 1695
    Court
    District Court
    Case number
    DCCJ4000/2021

    Although the court found the emails were defamatory and met the seriousness threshold, defendants failed to prove justification; however the communications were made on an occasion of qualified privilege and the plaintiff failed to plead or prove malice sufficient to defeat that privilege; accordingly the plaintiff's claims against the 1st and 4th Defendants were dismissed. The question of vicarious liability was unnecessary to decide, and if addressed the court would not have imposed vicarious liability on the employer on the facts.

  • 2 Apr 2024

    曹元緒 對 孫洪亞

    Citation
    [2024] HKDC 470
    Court
    District Court
    Case number
    DCCJ5438/2019

    On the balance of probabilities the log entries accurately reflected contemporaneous complaints by security staff, the defendant made the entries in the performance of his managerial duties without malice, qualified privilege therefore applies, publication was minimal and the plaintiff proved no actionable loss; claim dismissed.

  • 12 Jan 2024

    PANG SIU WING alias PANG WING v. CHUNGSHAN COMMERCIAL ASSOCIATION, HONG KONG

    Citation
    [2024] HKCA 49
    Court
    Court of Appeal
    Case number
    CACV286/2021

    The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal because the trial judge was entitled to find on the whole evidence that dishonesty was not proved to the heightened standard required for the serious allegation of wilful gross misconduct, and that the defendant's publication of the expulsion notices in three newspapers was excessive and disproportionate so as to vitiate qualified privilege; accordingly the Expulsion Resolution remained invalid and the libel findings and award were upheld.