Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments | LexChat

Hong Kong Case Law

Republication

  • 18 Apr 2023

    CHAN SHUNG FAI v. CHAN KAM WAH

    Citation
    [2023] HKDC 499
    Court
    District Court
    Case number
    DCCJ3441/2020

    Court held separate assessments were appropriate given differences in medium, content and extent; the defendant's belated apology was disregarded as tactical and not mitigating; defendant was actuated by malice (aimed at damaging plaintiff's election prospects); damages awarded for each publication based on gravity and extent with aggravated damages awarded for conduct and refusal to apologise.

  • 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).

  • 6 Dec 2021

    TSUI WAI YIP v. LAM MO CHIU

    Citation
    [2021] HKDC 1520
    Court
    District Court
    Case number
    DCCJ4878/2017

    First Statements were not defamatory when read in full context; Second Statements carried limited defamatory imputations (maligning IO members, targeting chairman/secretary, aiming to disrupt building operations and harming owners) but defendant established defences of justification, fair comment and qualified privilege and plaintiff failed to prove malice; accordingly claim dismissed and costs awarded to defendant.

  • 22 Apr 2020

    LO CHI LIK ERIC v. YUEN CHI HO CHRIS

    Citation
    [2020] HKDC 144
    Court
    District Court
    Case number
    DCCJ2702/2016

    Court found the 2nd and 5th statements carried imputations attacking the plaintiff's academic/professional integrity but the defendant established justification for the 2nd statement and fair comment for the 5th; the other pleaded statements were either not defamatory or below the seriousness threshold; the plaintiff's claim was dismissed and costs were awarded to the defendant.

  • 2 Aug 2018

    BRIAN MONTGOMERY v. CHUNG CHEUK HUNG, HERO

    Citation
    [2018] HKCFI 1804
    Court
    Court of First Instance
    Case number
    HCA1373/2015

    The appeal is dismissed because the proposed amendments failed to comply with Order 82 r3(1): the amended pleadings conflated named direct recipients and ill‑defined classes, failed to state whether republication was pleaded as a separate cause or for aggravated damages, and did not provide the necessary particularity of republishers and recipients required to allow the defendant to respond and to advance defences including qualified privilege; therefore leave to amend was refused and the Master's costs order was upheld.

  • 22 Dec 2017

    CHANG WA SHAN v. ESTHER CHAN PUI KWAN also known as CHAN PUI CHUN

    Citation
    CHANG WA SHAN v. ESTHER CHAN PUI KWAN also known as CHAN PUI CHUN
    Court
    Court of Appeal
    Case number
    CACV240/2015

    The Court granted leave to the defendant on Question 1 because the issue whether absolute privilege extends to communications between legal advisers and non-witness informants is reasonably arguable and of great public importance; it granted leave on Question 5 as discretionary and because members had differed; it granted leave to the plaintiff on Question 6 because the bench had differed on the recoverability of damages consequent on republication; it refused leave on Questions 2, 3 and 4 as subsidiary to Question 1 or unnecessary for determination at this stage.

  • 18 Oct 2017

    CHANG WA SHAN v. ESTHER CHAN PUI KWAN also known as CHAN PUI CHUN

    Citation
    CHANG WA SHAN v. ESTHER CHAN PUI KWAN also known as CHAN PUI CHUN
    Court
    Court of Appeal
    Case number
    CACV240/2015

    The Court held that the plaintiff was entitled to costs as the overall successful party but should be deprived of 30% of his costs to reflect the defendant's success on the issue of recovery of damages for republication covered by absolute privilege; granted certificate for three counsel for the appeal and two counsel for the trial; rejected limiting costs to District Court scale under s.43(3); set aside the lower court costs order and ordered the defendant to pay 70% of the costs of the appeal and 70% of the costs below and of the action.

  • 28 Nov 2016

    REGINA IP LAU SUK-YEE v. CHENG ALBERT JIANGHAN AND ANOTHER

    Citation
    REGINA IP LAU SUK-YEE v. CHENG ALBERT JIANGHAN AND ANOTHER
    Court
    Court of First Instance
    Case number
    HCA1458/2014

    The proposed amendments were disallowed because the fair comment amendment failed to identify the defamatory meanings and the specific comments required by authority, and the qualified privilege amendments were insufficiently particularised (notably as to the informant and verification) and could not establish reportage; accordingly leave to amend was refused and the summons dismissed.

  • 24 Sept 2015

    CHANG WA SHAN v. ESTHER CHAN PUI KWAN ALSO KNOWN AS CHAN PUI CHUN

    Citation
    CHANG WA SHAN v. ESTHER CHAN PUI KWAN ALSO KNOWN AS CHAN PUI CHUN
    Court
    Court of First Instance
    Case number
    HCA1855/2010

    The telephone communication by the document provider to counsel immediately prior to the contemplated use of the document in crossexamination was protected by absolute privilege because it was closely connected and practically necessary to the privileged act coram judice; accordingly the plaintiff's defamation and malicious falsehood claims were dismissed. Alternative factual findings (if privilege not applicable) rejected plaintiff's innuendo case and special damage claim, and held republication in court/press protected so no recoverable loss from those republications.

  • 2 Apr 2014

    WINMOST ENTERPRISES LTD v. CHINLINK INTERNATIONAL HOLDINGS LTD AND OTHERS

    Citation
    WINMOST ENTERPRISES LTD v. CHINLINK INTERNATIONAL HOLDINGS LTD AND OTHERS
    Court
    Court of First Instance
    Case number
    HCA2541/2005

    Only Wong's emails to two Waterfront managers were proved; the 2nd defendant and Wong had a legal, social or moral duty and corresponding interest to inform Waterfront about an allegation affecting project quality; Wong gave credible evidence of an honest belief in the article's truth; the plaintiff failed to prove dominant improper motive or malice; the 1st defendant was not shown to have published or authorised publication; qualified privilege therefore applied and plaintiff's claims were dismissed.