CHAU HOI SHUEN, SOLINA HOLLY v. SEEC MEDIA GROUP LTD

CACV 275/2012

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 275 OF 2012

(ON APPEAL FROM HCA NO. 1194 OF 2010)

________________________

________________________

________________________

D E C I S I O N

________________________

Hon Cheung JA (giving Decision of the Court) :

1. The defendant seeks leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal against our judgment of 25 April 2014. It relies on the following three questions which it says involve issues of great general or public importance :

(1) For the purposes of the defence of innocent dissemination, whether the defendant has to show that the matter that he had no knowledge of (and was not negligence in not having knowledge of) is that the book or paper contained (i) an actionable libel (i.e. a statement carrying a defamatory meaning subject to no valid defences) or (ii) merely a statement carrying a defamatory meaning.

(2) In relation to an activity undertaken only by a sub-board employee (or sub-board employees), though such activity is (like any other activity of a company) authorized by the board, whether the knowledge of a director can be attributable to the company.

(3) Whether the knowledge of a person acquired as an officer of one company will be attributed to another company of which he is also a director, where he owes no duty to the second company to receive it and no duty to the first to communicate it.

2. In our view Question 1 is not reasonably arguable.  In support of the question, the defendant relied on the minority view of Lord Denning in Goldsmith v. Sperrings Ltd [1977] 1 WLR 478 which remains a minority view in the English jurisprudence.  Further as we said in our judgment, it would be surprising when the Court of Final Appeal restated the ‘innocent dissemination’ defence recently in Oriental Press Group Ltd v Fevaworks Solutions Ltd [2013] 5 HKC 253, it would proceed on the basis of the minority view.

3. Our judgment which applied the traditional view was fact specific and we do not agree that issues of great general or public importance are engaged.

4. The attribution of the knowledge of a director to that of the company was not determinative of the defendant’s liability which was based on the facts of the case.  As such, we also do not accept that issues of great general or public importance are engaged with reference to Questions 2 and 3.

5. Accordingly the application is refused with costs to the plaintiff.  There will be certificate for two counsel.