Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Honest comment

Legal area

Court

14 Nov 2025

LAI CHEE YING v. TA KUNG PAO (HONG KONG) LTD

Citation

[2025] HKDC 1949
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ674/2025

The proposed amendments failed to provide the requisite particularity for allegations of corporate malice: identifying 101 articles without specifying the impugned content or the facts from which malice is to be inferred is confusing and prejudicial; pleadings must state specific facts/persons for malice; allowing vague amendments would impede just resolution; therefore leave to amend was refused and the summons dismissed.
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.
10 Oct 2024

LAI CHEE YING v. TA KUNG PAO (HONG KONG) LTD AND ANOTHER

Citation

[2024] HKCFI 2754
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA1989/2020

Application for a jury trial was dismissed because the action involved prolonged and detailed examination of a large and diverse body of documents (including 1,213 pages disclosed, 101 previous articles and 227 documents relied upon), the Reynolds public interest defence raised complex mixed issues unsuitable for a jury, and splitting factual questions between judge and jury would be inefficient and undesirable; therefore the proviso to s.33A(1) HCO applied and a judge alone trial was ordered.
14 Jul 2023

LI SAU MUI v. MAN WAI CHEONG

Citation

[2023] HKDC 995
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ4322/2018

The court refused indemnity costs because the defendant failed to show special or unusual features connected to the litigation warranting a more generous basis: although the defendant succeeded on defences, parts of the words were admitted defamatory, the dispute arose from a protracted rivalry and was fact‑sensitive rather than a plainly unmeritorious or vexatious claim, therefore discretion to order indemnity was not appropriately exercised.
17 May 2023

LI SAU MUI v. MAN WAI CHEONG

Citation

[2023] HKDC 620
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ4322/2018

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.
26 Nov 2021

LEUNG CHI CHING CANDY v. YEUNG HON SING

Citation

[2021] HKCA 1778
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV397/2020

The Court of Appeal found the trial judge's reasoning on malice in relation to qualified privilege was ambiguously structured and may have relied on predominantly objective findings of falsity to infer the defendant's state of mind, thereby excluding relevant subjective evidence; because the inference as to malice could not be safely made on the record, the appropriate remedy was to order a retrial limited to the issue of malice in the context of qualified privilege before a different District Court judge.
22 May 2020

LEUNG CHI CHING CANDY v. YEUNG HON SING

Citation

[2020] HKDC 343
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ5079/2015

[2020] HKDC 343
6 Mar 2014

MOK KAM KWAI v. LAM MO FAT

Citation

MOK KAM KWAI v. LAM MO FAT
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA1868/2010

Defendant was liable as a participant/authoriser of publication; the banners bore a defamatory single meaning (imputing incompetence, betrayal and acting for conflicting interests); defences failed because honest comment was not properly pleaded or supported by facts and defendant lacked genuine belief, traditional qualified privilege did not apply to publication to the public and the Reynolds/responsible dissemination defence was not established; malice was inferred; general damages of HKD 400,000 awarded with interest and costs to plaintiff.
29 Nov 2004

TANG WING LAM DAVID AND ANOTHER v. YICK KAM PING BELINDA

Citation

TANG WING LAM DAVID AND ANOTHER v. YICK KAM PING BELINDA
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA1852/2003

The 14 May 2003 letter did not bear a defamatory meaning capable of materially injuring the plaintiffs' reputations beyond a minor imputation of unauthorised entry, and in any event the defendant established the truth of the core sting (entry without permission) such that the plaintiffs failed to prove actionable defamation; action dismissed.