Read the full judgment text of CACV 381/2021 on BabelCite. This Court of Appeal judgment was delivered on 10 November 2022 before 關淑馨, 區慶祥, 周家明.
Civil appeal – insurance agency – standard of appellate review – whether plaintiff consented to be registered as insurance agent – whether 名譽權 is a recognized cause of action in Hong Kong – whether plaintiff proved any loss – appeal dismissed. The plaintiff/appellant alleged that the 1st defendant (an insurance company) and the 2nd defendant (a department head of the 1st defendant) falsely registered him as an insurance agent of the 1st defendant without his knowledge or consent, used him as a 'hidden insurance agent', and infringed his 'right of reputation' (名譽權), claiming HK$5 million in damages. The plaintiff's claim was heard before Mr Justice Yeung Car-yung in the Court of First Instance on 10 and 13 May 2021. On 19 July 2021, the trial judge dismissed the claim, finding (i) the plaintiff had consented to being registered as the 1st defendant's insurance agent, (ii) 名譽權 was not a recognized cause of action in Hong Kong outside the law of defamation, and (iii) the plaintiff had not proved any loss. The plaintiff appealed. The Court of Appeal applied the established principle that an appeal is not a re-trial, and the appellate court will not lightly interfere with a trial judge's factual findings and assessment of witness credibility unless the findings are plainly wrong – see Ting Kwok Keung v Tam Dick Yuen (2002) 5 HKCFAR 336, China Gold Finance Ltd v CIL Holdings Ltd CACV 11/2015, and 李智慧 及 昆士蘭保險 (香港)有限公司 [2021] HKCA 984. The court rejected the appellant's challenge to the trial judge's assessment of his credibility, holding that the plaintiff had signed the application form, appointment letter, and welcome letter, and had received the Insurance Agents Registration Board's notification confirming his registration on 25 April 2016. The change in the development allowance from HK$25,000 per month to zero did not undermine his consent to registration, as the key issue was not whether a complete employment contract was formed but whether the plaintiff consented to registration. The court also rejected the challenge to the trial judge's reliance on Ming Shiu Chung v Ming Shiu Sum (2006) 9 HKCFAR 334, holding this case merely established the general principle that a person is bound by documents they choose to sign unless there is a recognized legal basis to invalidate them. The conviction of 鄺秀美 in ESCC 2707/2019 for fraud regarding the plaintiff's work experience did not affect the question of whether the plaintiff consented to registration. The court further noted that the plaintiff had not appealed the trial judge's finding that 名譽權 was not a recognized cause of action, and that even if the factual findings were successfully challenged, the claim would fail on this basis alone. The court also rejected the argument that the plaintiff had suffered loss through a claim by China Life in 2017, as no such claim was pleaded and no evidence connected it to the insurance agent registration. The appeal was dismissed, with the plaintiff ordered to pay the 1st and 2nd defendants' costs of the appeal on a summary assessment basis.
Legal issues: Whether trial judge erred in finding plaintiff consented to be registered as insurance agent · Whether 名譽權 is a recognized cause of action in Hong Kong · Whether plaintiff proved any loss
Outcome: Appeal dismissed; plaintiff's claim dismissed.
Cited by 30 cases · Cites 6 cases