|
DCCJ 1047/2022
[2022] HKDC 1377
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE
HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION
CIVIL ACTION NO 1047 OF 2022
---------------------------
|
BETWEEN
|
| |
YAM WING CHIU |
Plaintiff |
| |
and |
|
| |
WONG YEE LING |
1st Defendant |
| |
NG KA MAN |
2nd Defendant |
---------------------------
Before: Deputy District Judge B Mak in Chambers
Date of Hearing: 11 November 2022
Date of Decision: 28 November 2022
----------------------
DECISION
----------------------
Introduction
1. Before me is a summons taken out by the plaintiff on 25 July 2022 pursuant to Order 19 rule 7 of the Rules of the District Court for judgment in default of defence.
Service
2. The writ of summons was served on the 1st and 2nd defendants on 19 April 2022 by registered post to their last known address.
3. No acknowledgment of service was entered by either of the defendants.
4. The present summons was served on the 1st and 2nd defendants on 25 July 2022 by ordinary post to their last known address.
5. I am satisfied that the writ of summons and the present summons were duly served on the 1st and 2nd defendants and they have chosen not to take any action.
Legal principles
6. In an application under Order 19 rule 7, the court cannot receive any evidence in cases hereunder, but must give judgment according to the pleadings alone: see Hong Kong Civil Procedure 2022 Vol 1 at 19/7/11.
7. It is not the practice of the court to make a declaration of right in default of defence, or on admissions or by consent but where such relief is to be granted without trial or evidence, the right course for the court is not to make a declaration but to state on what footing the relief is to be granted: see Hong Kong Civil Procedure 2022 Vol 1 at 19/7/14.
8. The declaratory reliefs to be granted should not be in terms wider than what the plaintiffs are entitled to and what is necessary to do justice to them: see Hong Kong Civil Procedure 2022 Vol 1 at 19/7/20.
The plaintiff’s pleaded case
9. The plaintiff had been a member of the Society for Abandoned Animals Limited (“SAA”) since around mid-2016. He was disqualified as a volunteer dog handler on or around 27 July 2018.
10. The 1st defendant is and was a dog training consultant of SAA. The 2nd defendant is and was the general manager of SAA.
11. There was a whatsapp group in the name of “SAA領犬員交流區” for communications between the management of SAA and the volunteer dog handlers of which plaintiff, the 1st defendant and other volunteers of SAA were members (“the volunteer whatsapp group”). There were around 50 members in the group.
12. There was another whatsapp group in the name of “SAA PAK SHA SHELTER通訊” within the management of SAA including the 1st and 2nd defendants (“the management whatsapp group”).
13. On 27 July 2018, the 1st defendant posted the following message in the volunteer whatsaspp group:
“近日收到眾多領犬員投訴，被某領犬員不停滋擾，感到心身疲累。而該滋擾領犬員亦不認同會內機構做法。於報刊將事實內容本抹倒置，會內決定取消該領犬員資格。感謝該領犬員這些年來的幫忙，希望日後你能幫助其他更多有需要的事情。謝謝。”
(“the 1st statement”)
14. The plaintiff was removed from the volunteer whatsapp group immediately after 1st statement was published.
15. On or around 27 July 2018, the 2nd defendant posted the following message in the management whatsapp group:
“近日收到眾多領犬員投訴，被領犬員（阿超）不停滋擾。而他亦不認同本會制度，監於避免他會挑撥及擾亂本會秩序為由，因此從即日起取消其領犬員資格。
另外與同事工作上有不清晰的問題，應向直屬主管查詢。如外界對本會有任何查詢，亦歡迎致電查詢。”
(“the 2nd statement”)
16. Both the 1st and the 2nd statement were communicated to members in the 2 whatsapp groups.
17. The plaintiff says the 1st and 2nd statement conveyed the message that a large number of volunteer dog handlers complained that the plaintiff harassed and/or caused nuisance to them whereby his reputation was harmed.
Findings
18. On the plaintiff’s pleaded case, I am satisfied that 1st and 2nd statements were published by the 1st and 2nd defendants respectively and that they were defamatory to the reputation of the plaintiff.
19. By reasons of the aforesaid, the plaintiff is entitled to damage against the 1st and 2nd defendants and an injunction restraining them from publishing similar defamatory statement.
20. At the hearing, Mr Stephen Siu, counsel for the plaintiff, rightly in my view, abandoned the reliefs requiring the 1st and 2nd defendants to publish a summary of the judgment of this court in newspaper and the 2 whatsapp groups. The court would not make this kind of order against an unwilling defendant: see Chow Wing Kai aka Wave and Wave Chow v Liang Jing [2021] 2 HKLRD 1189, let alone an absentee defendant.
Costs
21. The plaintiff is entitled to the costs of this action on liability and this application with certificate for counsel, to be taxed if not agreed, and I so order.
| |
( Brian Mak )
Deputy District Judge
|
Mr Stephen Siu, Counsel instructed by Fongs, for the plaintiffThe 1st defendant was not represented and absent
The 2nd defendant was not represented and absent
|