7 Feb 2018
Leave to appeal was granted on the specific legal question whether publication of the report in the form of the applicant's Special Comment Report constitutes 'misconduct' under section 193 of the Securities and Futures Ordinance (Cap 571); the substantive issue is to be decided on appeal.
29 Jun 2016
The court refused to grant the 8th defendant the strike-out relief sought because, on the pleaded facts and surrounding context (notice, voting form, subsequent meetings and votes) it was not plain and obvious that he could have no liability for publication; however the court, of its own motion, struck out the portion of paragraph 9 that inaccurately alleged the 30 May resolution included a decision to publish, and directed the plaintiff to serve an amended statement of claim within specified time limits; costs were apportioned (50% of the 8th defendant's costs here and below to be in the cau…
14 Feb 2013
On the assumed facts and documentary evidence the court could legitimately infer that the 3rd defendant may have participated in, encouraged or supplied information for the 2nd and 3rd letters; the claim against him is not plain and obvious and therefore the strike-out application is refused and the matter must proceed to trial.
30 Mar 2012
The court held the 1st and 2nd offending words were defamatory of the Plaintiff; the Defendant had actual notice and failed to remove the material within a reasonable time and thereby acquiesced, making it liable as a subordinate distributor (innocent dissemination not established); awarding general damages HK$100,000, granting an injunction and ordering Norwich Pharmacal disclosure of hit counts and certain identifying information (to the extent in Defendant's possession), with disclosure to be verified by a director within 21 days and costs ordered nisi in favour of the Plaintiff.