Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Qualified privilege and malice

Legal area

Court

5 Dec 2017

NOWODZELSKI, STACEY ALAN v. DIRECTOR OF IMMIGRATION & ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF IMMIGRATION

Citation

NOWODZELSKI, STACEY ALAN v. DIRECTOR OF IMMIGRATION & ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF IMMIGRATION
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA393/2017

The Master’s strike out was upheld because the plaintiff's claims disclosed no reasonable cause of action and/or were an abuse of process: the Removal Order is an administratively authorised civil measure distinct from criminal punishment and did not breach Article 11(6); the prejudicial treatment and naturalization complaints were matters for JR and lacked an arguable basis (plaintiff was not stateless and had no proven right of abode); the libel claim failed because communications were made under statutory duty and qualified privilege applied with no pleaded or evidential malice; and a new…
23 Nov 2015

LO SAM SHING v. LI FONG

Citation

LO SAM SHING v. LI FONG
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV71/2014

The trial judge's factual findings that the defendant's factual allegations were not proven and that the defendant acted with malice were not plainly wrong; therefore defences of justification, fair comment and qualified privilege failed and the trial awards of HK$200,000 general and HK$100,000 aggravated damages stand, but the costs order is varied to District Court scale with certificate for two counsel on appeal.
11 Aug 2015

莫偉翔 v. 香港神托會 AND OTHERS

Citation

莫偉翔 v. 香港神托會 AND OTHERS
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA2597/2005

The appeal was dismissed because (1) the plaintiff's prolonged and inexcusable delay amounted to abuse of process (warehousing the claims) justifying striking out; (2) the claim against the sponsoring Society disclosed no reasonable cause of action (no pleaded basis for vicarious liability or control); (3) the School and Teachers' communications were plainly protected by qualified privilege absent pleaded and evidenced actual malice; and (4) the consolidated statement of claim was scandalous, prolix and beyond reasonable salvage; accordingly the statement of claim was struck out and the actio…
3 Aug 2015

THE INCORPORATED OWNERS OF TUNG LO COURT v. TSUI WAI YIP

Citation

THE INCORPORATED OWNERS OF TUNG LO COURT v. TSUI WAI YIP
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV27/2015

The IO has locus at common law to sue for defamation; only document D3 sufficiently referred to the IO; D3 went beyond a reasonable, proportionate response and was not protected by qualified privilege because it was retaliatory and made with malice; damages for the actionable publication (D3) are assessed at HK$200,000; the trial costs order was set aside and no order as to costs for the trial was made; defendant awarded costs of the appeal.

Hong Kong Case Law

NOWODZELSKI, STACEY ALAN v. DIRECTOR OF IMMIGRATION & ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF IMMIGRATION

LO SAM SHING v. LI FONG

莫偉翔 v. 香港神托會 AND OTHERS

THE INCORPORATED OWNERS OF TUNG LO COURT v. TSUI WAI YIP