Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Malice

Legal area

Court

9 Mar 2026

NUME LTD v. YUEN HOI MAN

Citation

[2026] HKCFI 1302
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA192/2021

On the balance of probabilities defendant established the substantial truth (justification) of the core imputation that plaintiff fell within the statutory definition of a "beauty parlour" under Cap.599F and operated in breach of the specified closure direction during the Specified Period; accordingly the defamation claim failed. However two discrete asserted imputations were false (that plaintiff received subsidies under the Scheme and that "including its doctors" all were liable as managers) and were published recklessly; malicious falsehood therefore established in respect of those two fal…
24 Jun 2025

HO KWAN YIU v. DENNIS KWOK WING HANG AND OTHERS

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 2788
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA1997/2019

Court allowed the Amendment Summons permitting the plaintiff to amend the Statement of Claim to rely on the 2nd defendant's conviction and sentence; the Court granted the Stay Summons as modified and stayed the entire action pending determination of the 2nd defendant's criminal appeal, with leave to tidy drafting and costs in the cause with certificate for counsel.
24 Mar 2025

李麗紅對吳燕芬

Citation

[2025] HKDC 478
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ1817/2019

Five of the six passages (paragraphs 1,3,4,5 and 6) carried natural meanings that were defamatory; paragraph 2 was not defamatory. Defendant failed to plead Lucas-Box meanings and did not provide required particulars for a justification or fair comment defence, so those defences failed. However the communication was made in the context of an internal investigation to the school board and its investigative committee, which constituted a qualified privileged occasion; defendant's primary purpose aligned with that occasion and there was insufficient evidence of malice or abuse of the occasion. C…
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.
31 Oct 2024

BRETON JEAN v. HK BELLAWINGS.JET LTD AND OTHERS

Citation

[2024] HKDC 1695
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ4000/2021

Although the court found the emails were defamatory and met the seriousness threshold, defendants failed to prove justification; however the communications were made on an occasion of qualified privilege and the plaintiff failed to plead or prove malice sufficient to defeat that privilege; accordingly the plaintiff's claims against the 1st and 4th Defendants were dismissed. The question of vicarious liability was unnecessary to decide, and if addressed the court would not have imposed vicarious liability on the employer on the facts.
28 Oct 2024

NGAI WAI YEUNG v. LAU YUN FUNG BERTHA

Citation

[2024] HKDC 1811
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ336/2023

It was not plain and obvious that the impugned emails and oral statements could not bear the plaintiff's alleged defamatory meanings; an ordinary reader could infer the pleaded imputations and factual disputes and pleaded particulars of malice existed, so the defendant failed to show the claim was unsustainable and the strike-out application must be 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.
2 Apr 2024

曹元緒對孫洪亞

Citation

[2024] HKDC 470
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ5438/2019

On the balance of probabilities the log entries accurately reflected contemporaneous complaints by security staff, the defendant made the entries in the performance of his managerial duties without malice, qualified privilege therefore applies, publication was minimal and the plaintiff proved no actionable loss; claim dismissed.
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.
9 Jun 2023

LAM WAI IP v. THE SECRETARY FOR JUSTICE

Citation

[2023] HKCA 721
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV435/2020

Appeal allowed because the trial judge failed to take into account material evidence (two recorded searches at Kwai Chung Police Station) that contradicted his key factual finding about the New Trousers Episode and mischaracterised the pleaded identity of the prosecutor; those errors rendered the judge's conclusions on absence of reasonable and probable cause and malice unsafe and warranted a retrial before a different judge.