Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Express malice

Legal area

Court

22 Jul 2004

LO KI CHUNG v. HONG KONG NAM HOI (SHA TAU DISTRICT) ASSOCIATION LTD

Citation

LO KI CHUNG v. HONG KONG NAM HOI (SHA TAU DISTRICT) ASSOCIATION LTD
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA39/2003

Court found the challenged passages did bear the pleaded defamatory imputations but the occasions of publication (internal Letter to members and public Notice) attracted qualified privilege under the duty‑interest test; plaintiff failed to plead or prove express malice or absence of honest belief; accordingly qualified privilege was not defeated and defendant entitled to judgment; claim dismissed (costs to defendant).
14 Jun 1996

DR KI PING KI, PAUL v. NEXT MAGAZINE LTD. and Others

Citation

DR KI PING KI, PAUL v. NEXT MAGAZINE LTD. and Others
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA8071/1994

On the evidence most of the complained statements were either true in substance or not capable of the defamatory meanings alleged; where some particulars were incorrect the defendants established partial justification under s.26 and/or fair comment on matters of public interest; there was no evidence of express malice; accordingly judgment for defendants with costs.
27 Feb 1985

Y KHAN v. P.G. O\'DEA AND ANOTHER

Citation

Y KHAN v. P.G. O\'DEA AND ANOTHER
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA5850/1982

The court found the contested statements and letters were substantially true or justified on the proven facts; comments complained of followed reasonably from those facts; publications were made to committee/members and therefore attracted qualified privilege; plaintiff failed to prove express malice or sufficient special damage; accordingly the defamation claim fails and is dismissed.
26 May 1972

LI CHING AND OTHERS v. KOO TOO SHING AND OTHERS

Citation

LI CHING AND OTHERS v. KOO TOO SHING AND OTHERS
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA1004/1969

Neither side was entitled to rely on qualified privilege or fair comment because plaintiffs exceeded their mandate and published to a non‑member and defendants acted with express malice; many allegations about mismanagement and failure to produce annual accounts were substantially justified but specific imputations of personal financial dishonesty against the first defendant were not justified; plaintiffs succeeded on multiple libels and defendants succeeded on one libel; damages awarded accordingly.

Hong Kong Case Law

LO KI CHUNG v. HONG KONG NAM HOI (SHA TAU DISTRICT) ASSOCIATION LTD

DR KI PING KI, PAUL v. NEXT MAGAZINE LTD. and Others

Y KHAN v. P.G. O\'DEA AND ANOTHER

LI CHING AND OTHERS v. KOO TOO SHING AND OTHERS