Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments | LexChat

Hong Kong Case Law

Innuendo

  • 16 Feb 2023

    YIP WAI TAK VIVIAN v. LEE KA WO ESMOND AND OTHERS

    Citation
    [2023] HKDC 174
    Court
    District Court
    Case number
    DCCJ4923/2019

    The email did not bear the specific defamatory meanings pleaded by the plaintiff and, insofar as statements matched complaints, were partly true; alternatively, publication to the association and its relevant officers was an occasion of qualified privilege and defendants honestly believed a genuine complaint had been made and lacked the requisite malice to defeat the privilege; breach of confidence and misuse of private information claims failed because the material lacked the necessary quality of confidence and was not private; accordingly plaintiff's claims against defendants 1 and 2 are di…

  • 8 Sept 2017

    CHANG WA SHAN v. ESTHER CHAN PUI KWAN AND ANOTHER

    Citation
    CHANG WA SHAN v. ESTHER CHAN PUI KWAN AND ANOTHER
    Court
    Court of Appeal
    Case number
    CACV240/2015

    Majority held (1) the telephone communication identifying the plaintiff as provider of the Document was not on an occasion of absolute privilege; (2) the plaintiff established a defamatory innuendo (8A(c)) that he assisted in the unworthy challenge for personal gain; (3) malicious falsehood and section 23/24 thresholds were satisfied for business-related harm so special damage need not be proved for those statutory limbs, but (4) losses arising from republication on occasions covered by absolute privilege were not recoverable from the original publisher as a matter of policy and to preserve t…

  • 23 Mar 2015

    LEE SAU LAI ALEXANDRETTA AND ANOTHER v. LI SAU SANG

    Citation
    LEE SAU LAI ALEXANDRETTA AND ANOTHER v. LI SAU SANG
    Court
    District Court
    Case number
    DCCJ2191/2012

    Reading the email chains as a whole a reasonable non-naïve reader would find the publications defamatory (they imputed that each plaintiff abused her position to intimidate, oppress and harass staff and engaged in 'witch-hunting' creating 'white terror'). The defence of fair comment failed because the later emails constituted imputations of fact not opinion and the publications were not on a matter of public interest in the sense relied upon. Qualified privilege failed because the emails were sent to many recipients without a corresponding duty/interest and included management and non-union r…

  • 20 Jul 2007

    HO YUEN KI WINNIE AND ANOTHER v. HO HUNG SUN STANLEY AND ANOTHER

    Citation
    HO YUEN KI WINNIE AND ANOTHER v. HO HUNG SUN STANLEY AND ANOTHER
    Court
    Court of First Instance
    Case number
    HCA391/2006

    The court found the words complained of had been pleaded with sufficient particularity (the verbatim words were set out and 'or substantially similar' referred back to those words), and that, read in context, the impugned paragraphs were arguable and capable of bearing the pleaded ordinary and innuendo meanings; therefore the striking out and disallowing applications failed, the fallback Order 14A determination failed, the plaintiffs' re‑amendment was allowed, and defects should be addressed by further and better particulars rather than striking out.

  • 26 Jan 2007

    MITSUOKA TOMOTARI v. KAO INTERNATIONAL LTD

    Citation
    MITSUOKA TOMOTARI v. KAO INTERNATIONAL LTD
    Court
    Court of First Instance
    Case number
    HCA2538/2005

    The pleas of justification and fair comment (paras 10 and 11) were struck out because the imputation objectively conveyed by the article was that the plaintiff had proved and recommended the defendant's specific product BCS and advocated its daily use, yet the defendant admitted BCS was not mentioned in the plaintiff's cited books; justification must correspond to the precise imputation and the defendant lacked the necessary factual basis, and fair comment failed because the asserted primary facts were untrue or non-existent.

  • 28 Feb 2006

    YAM CHI MING STEPHEN v. SING PAO NEWSPAPER CO LTD

    Citation
    YAM CHI MING STEPHEN v. SING PAO NEWSPAPER CO LTD
    Court
    Court of First Instance
    Case number
    HCA99/2005

    Judge found the plaintiff in a contemporaneous telephone interview told a reporter he knew before making the bail application that the District Judge lacked jurisdiction; that reporting was an accurate factual base; the alleged imputations were comment on a matter of public interest based on that true base fact; the defence of fair comment therefore succeeded and the plaintiff's libel and innuendo claims failed.

  • 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).

  • 17 Apr 2002

    ORIENTAL PRESS GROUP LTD. v. NEXT MAGAZINE PUBLISHING LTD. AND OTHERS

    Citation
    ORIENTAL PRESS GROUP LTD. v. NEXT MAGAZINE PUBLISHING LTD. AND OTHERS
    Court
    Court of Appeal
    Case number
    CACV1006/2000

    The Court held that on the proper construction the words complained of were not reasonably capable of bearing the pleaded natural or innuendo defamatory meanings save that a limited less injurious innuendo (that appointment was approved by a fugitive from justice) could stand if the extrinsic fact of flight were proved from earlier articles; the estoppel objection failed; Mr Yip could be a witness of extrinsic facts but could not be equated with an ordinary reader; and the judge did not abuse her discretion in ordering costs for the amendment.

  • 15 Nov 2000

    ORIENTAL PRESS GROUP LTD. v. NEXT MAGAZINE PUBLISHING LTD. AND OTHERS

    Citation
    ORIENTAL PRESS GROUP LTD. v. NEXT MAGAZINE PUBLISHING LTD. AND OTHERS
    Court
    Court of First Instance
    Case number
    HCA3831/1997

    The amendment was substantial and necessary for the plaintiff to avoid dismissal; leave to amend was granted in part but because the amendment would prejudice the defendants and deprive them of costs they would otherwise recover, the plaintiff must pay the defendants' costs incurred to date and the costs occasioned by the amendment, to be taxed and payable forthwith; paragraphs 10, 10A and 11(5) were disallowed as inappropriate.