Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Meaning of words in defamation

Legal area

Court

19 Feb 2021

TSANG PO MANN v. TSANG KA KIT AND ANOTHER

Citation

[2021] HKDC 208
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ4891/2016

Applying ordinary‑reader construction the three assertions did not bear the serious defamatory meanings pleaded; the 1st and 3rd assertions were not defamatory and the 2nd, if defamatory, was substantially true on the evidence (justification). However, use of CCTV images for the new purpose without consent contravened PDPO Principle 3 and caused compensatable injury to feelings; defendants as data users liable under s66 and ordered to pay HK$70,000; costs apportioned having regard to overall conduct and overlapping issues.
14 May 2007

LEE YORK FAI v. HO HAU CHEUNG

Citation

LEE YORK FAI v. HO HAU CHEUNG
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA1251/2005

The Court held the Words were capable of meaning that the plaintiff, a medical doctor, was raised under a substandard education and was a substandard professional; however those remarks were made in the course of District Council business advising the Government and s.86 applied because the defendant was performing his functions and, on the facts, acted bona fide despite a spur-of-the-moment gratuitous remark, therefore s.86 immunity barred the defamation claim and the action was dismissed.
9 Jul 1997

PEREGRINE INVESTMENTS HOLDINGS LTD v. THE ASSOCIATED PRESS

Citation

PEREGRINE INVESTMENTS HOLDINGS LTD v. THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA12862/1995

On a common-sense impressionistic reading by the not-unduly-suspicious reasonable reader the press release was not capable of bearing meanings that Peregrine knowingly and dishonestly assisted Roh to hide bribery proceeds, nor that there were reasonable grounds to suspect Peregrine of such dishonesty; accordingly sub-paragraphs 4(1), 4(2) and thus 4(3) were not capable of the pleaded meanings and the preliminary issue is decided against the Plaintiff.

Hong Kong Case Law

TSANG PO MANN v. TSANG KA KIT AND ANOTHER

LEE YORK FAI v. HO HAU CHEUNG

PEREGRINE INVESTMENTS HOLDINGS LTD v. THE ASSOCIATED PRESS