Chan Shung Fai v. Chan Kam Wah
Read the full judgment text of DCCJ 3441/2020 on BabelCite. This District Court judgment was delivered on 18 April 2023.
1. This is an assessment of damages caused to the plaintiff by the defendant’s publication of five sets of defamatory statements.
Cited by 1 case · Cites 4 cases
|
DCCJ 3441/2020 [2023] HKDC 499 IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION CIVIL ACTION NO 3441 OF 2020 ------------------------------------
------------------------------------
------------------------------ JUDGMENT ------------------------------ A. Introduction 1.This is an assessment of damages caused to the plaintiff by the defendant’s publication of five sets of defamatory statements. 2.The plaintiff is an investment banker and entrepreneur. He has been involved in community services in Hong Kong and the Mainland, including the following:
3.The defendant is the biological father of the plaintiff. He was married to the plaintiff’s mother, Madam Lee Kam Tai, until they were divorced in the late 1980s. 4.The plaintiff and the defendant both stood for the election for the indigenous inhabitant representative for Ping Yeung Village in the 2019 Village Representative Election held in January 2019 (the “Election”). 5.The plaintiff commenced the present action by issuing the writ on 8 July 2020. By consent, an interlocutory judgment dated 21 October 2020 was entered against the defendant on liability with damages to be assessed. 6.Counsel Mr Lawrence Ng appeared for the plaintiff and Mr Roy Lau appeared for the defendant at the assessment hearing. B. The offending publications 7.There are five publications complained of:
B1. The Offending Declaration 8.In an announcement entitled “與陳崇輝脫離父子關係之聲明”, which was published on the front page (page A1) of the 29 September 2018 issue of Oriental Daily News, the following words were published:
9.According to the plaintiff, the 1st Offending Words, in their natural and ordinary meaning, meant or were understood to mean, inter alia, that:
10.The Offending Declaration was re-published in a number of newspapers and/or their websites in Hong Kong, including:
11.Furthermore, in respect of some of the Hong Kong newspapers and their websites, whilst they did not republish the whole of the Offending Declaration, they nevertheless republished the gist of the Offending Declaration and the 1st Offending Words as follows:
B2. The 1st Offending Video 12.A video entitled “【父子決裂】祖傳地留新歡十歲子惹紛爭71歲陳金華：有人想我死” has been published on the website of HK01 since 5 October 2018. In the video, the defendant was being interviewed by a reporter and he said, inter alia, the following:
13.According to the plaintiff, the 2nd Offending Words, in their natural and ordinary meaning, meant or were understood to mean, inter alia, that:
B3. The 2nd Offending Video 14.A video entitled “陳金華親述與兒子斷絕關係” has been published on the website of Oriental Daily News since 30 September 2018. At the beginning of the video, the defendant was holding a copy of the Offending Declaration in front of the camera. A reporter asked why he had made the said declaration. The defendant then said, inter alia, the following:
15.According to the plaintiff, the 3rd Offending Words, in their natural and ordinary meaning, meant or were understood to mean, inter alia, that:
B4. The 3rd Offending Video 16.A video entitled “陳金華激動跪祠堂： 祖先明鑑” has been published on the website of Apple Daily and on YouTube since 1 October 2018. At the beginning of the video, the defendant was kneeing down apparently at an ancestral hall and said the following:
17.In the subsequent interview, he said, inter alia, the following:
18.According to the plaintiff, the 4th Offending Words, in their natural and ordinary meaning, meant or were understood to mean, inter alia, that:
B5. The 4th Offending Video 19.A video entitled “決裂父子村選鬥法 陳金華再斥忤逆仔打壓” has been published on the website of Apple Daily and on YouTube since 7 January 2019. That was another interview where the defendant, inter alia, said the following:
20.According to the plaintiff, the 5th Offending Words, in their natural and ordinary meaning, meant or were understood to mean, inter alia, that:
C. Witnesses 21.The plaintiff has filed three witness statements and attended the assessment to give oral evidence. He called no other witnesses. 22.The defendant has filed two witness statements. However, at the assessment, he only adopted his supplemental witness statement but not his original statement. In his supplemental statement, as will be explained below, the defendant made an apology to the plaintiff for the first time. The plaintiff contends that such an apology shall be ignored for various reasons to which I shall return. The defendant attended the assessment to give oral evidence and called no other witnesses. 23.On the whole, I find the plaintiff’s testimony to be candid and coherent. There was in fact little cross-examination of the plaintiff on most of the facts and matters stated in his three witness statements. In his closing submissions, Mr Lau also fairly refrained from attacking the plaintiff’s creditability or reliability. I find the plaintiff to be a credible and reliable witness and I accept his evidence. 24.On the other hand, I do not find the defendant to be entirely candid. His testimony was at times evasive and at others self-contradictory. As will be further explained below, I do not accept his evidence in particular regarding:
D. Legal principles 25.The principles set out in the following paragraphs are well-established and not in dispute. D1. General damages 26.An award of general damages is compensatory in nature and must compensate the successful plaintiff for the damage to his reputation; vindicate his good name; and take into account of the distress, hurt and humiliation which the defamatory publication has caused: John v MGN Ltd [1997] QB 586, 607; approved in Oriental Daily Publisher Ltd v Ming Pao Holdings Ltd (2012) 15 HKCFAR 299 at §35 per Ribeiro PJ. 27.In assessing the appropriate damages for injury to reputation the most important factor is the gravity of the libel; the more closely it touches the plaintiff’s personal integrity, professional reputation, honour, courage, loyalty and the core attributes of his personality, the more serious it is likely to be. The extent of publication is also very relevant: a libel published to millions has a greater potential to cause damage than a libel published to a handful of people. A successful plaintiff may properly look to an award of damages to vindicate his reputation: but the significance of this is much greater in a case where the defendant asserts the truth of the libel and refuses any retraction or apology than in a case where the defendant acknowledges the falsity of what was published and publicly expresses regret that the libellous publication took place: John v MGN Ltd [1997] QB 586, 607; approved in Oriental Daily at §39 per Ribeiro PJ. D2. Aggravated damages 28.Aggravated damages are part of the compensatory award and may be granted to “compensate for additional injury caused to the plaintiff’s feelings by the defendant’s conduct of the action, as when he persists in an unfounded assertion that the publication was true, or refuses to apologise, or cross-examines the plaintiff in a wounding or insulting way: Oriental Daily at §112 per Ribeiro PJ. 29.Any kind of high-handed, oppressive, insulting or contumelious behaviour by the defendant which increases the mental pain and suffering caused by the defamation and may constitute injury to the plaintiff’s pride and self-confidence: McCarey v Associated Newspapers Ltd (No 2) [1965] 2 QB 86, 104 per Pearson LJ; approved in Oriental Daily at §113 per Ribeiro PJ. 30.The conduct must be of a kind that rubs salt into the wound: Oriental Daily at §130 per Ribeiro PJ. E. Issues 31.It is convenient to resolve the following issues before assessing the damages in respect of the Offending Words:
E1. Separate or global award 32.Mr Lau submits that a global approach is suitable in this case because the five sets of Offending Words are closely related to each other, and the readers are also similar. Thus, he argues that it is more appropriate to adopt a global approach in assessing the general damages and the aggravated damages to minimize the overlapping effect. 33.On the other hand, Mr Ng submits that apart from performing separate assessment for the Offending Declaration and the Offending Videos, the court ought also to perform separate assessment for each of the four Offending Videos. He argues that only by doing so will the court be able to give proper weight to the differences in the seriousness of the defamatory meanings of the 2nd to 5th Offending Words, which the court will not be able to do if a global assessment were to be adopted. 34.I am of the view that separate assessment for each of the five Offending Words is appropriate in the present case. This is because the nature, medium and extent of publications are very different in the five incidents. Contrary to Mr Lau’s submissions, it seems that the readers of the physical copies of the Offending Declaration published on the Oriental Daily News and the watchers of the Offending Videos published on the various websites may be different. The extent of publication of the Offending Declaration may also be very different from that of the Defamatory Videos. Further, global assessment seems inappropriate as the seriousness of the five Offending Words varies substantially. For example, the serious allegations of the plaintiff being guilty of false imprisonment and other more serious misdeeds were only present in the 2nd Offending Words and not others. E2. Whether republications in websites have been pleaded 35.Mr Lau raises a pleading point that in the Statement of Claim, issue of republishing is pleaded in a “very restrictive manner”. He submits that the plaintiff has only pleaded at paragraph 3 that the Offending Declaration “was published on the front page of the 29 September 2018 issue of Oriental Daily News … and was republished in a number of newspapers in Hong Kong including Apply (sic) Daily … (emphasis added)”. Mr Lau argues that republishing of the Offending Declaration in “websites” have not been pleaded. Therefore, Mr Lau argues that the plaintiff should not be allowed to rely on those republications on the various websites in this assessment. 36.I am unable to agree to those submissions. I agree with Mr Ng that “newspapers” should not be interpreted so narrowly nowadays. I think the court can take judicial notice that whilst newspapers have traditionally been published in print, nowadays most newspapers in Hong Kong are also published on websites. It therefore seems artificial to restrict the word “newspapers” to only those in print and exclude those which are published on websites. E3. The apology by the defendant 37.By three letters before action all dated 4 June 2020 (sent to the defendant at different addresses), the plaintiff’s solicitors demanded for an apology from the defendant. There was however no response to those letters. 38.Shortly before the assessment hearing, the defendant filed a supplemental witness statement where he explained the reasons for his conduct and made an apology as follows:
39.Mr Lau submits that the defendant has therefore offered his sincere apologies although it was made “a bit late”. Mr Lau further submits that at the assessment hearing, the defendant did not adopt his first witness statement which touched on the history of the parties. Mr Lau argues it was done to avoid causing further injury to the feeling of the plaintiff. Mr Lau also notes that during cross-examination, the defendant had repeatedly offered his apologies for at least four times and stressed that he must apologize to the plaintiff. Mr Lau submits that the above indicates that the defendant has been adopting a very reasonable approach in this action, aiming not to cause additional damage to the feeling of the plaintiff. 40.On the other hand, Mr Ng submits that for the following reasons, damages should not be reduced on account of the defendant’s belated apology:
41.I agree with Mr Ng. The defendant was unable to give any satisfactory explanation as to why he refused or failed to tender an apology to the plaintiff despite the three letters before action, the service of the Statement of Claim and the plaintiff’s witness statements. His attempt during cross-examination to shift the blame to his solicitors was disingenuous. I agree that his belated apology is merely a tactical move to reduce damages and therefore should be disregarded. E4. Whether the defendant’s conduct was actuated by malice 42.Mr Lau submits that the defendant’s conduct was caused by his crave for attention of the plaintiff, his eldest son. Mr Lau argues that the defendant’s upset can be seen from the Offending Words such as:
43.Mr Lau also notes that during cross-examination, the defendant repeatedly said that he published the statements not for injuring the plaintiff or for the Election, but instead for love and care. For example, the defendant said “施手術都無嚟睇過我，我幾傷心” and “希望可以關心我，和好如初” and “我目標希望和好如初，我都幾十歲人”. Mr Lau therefore argues that the defendant was not intending to attack the plaintiff with malice; instead, as an old-fashioned father and indigenous villager, he was just trying to look for love and care but unfortunately used the wrong approach. 44.On the other hand, Mr Ng submits that the defendant published the Offending Words maliciously, and with a dominant improper motive to injure the plaintiff and/or damage the plaintiff’s chance of being re-elected as the Head of Ping Yeung Village, and consequently his chance of being re-elected as the Chairman of Ta Kwu Ling District Rural Committee and his chance of being re-appointed as a member of North District Council, because:
45.Mr Ng also submits that there is no basis for the defendant’s submissions that in publishing the Offending Words, his “prime motive is to attract the attention of his elder son for love and care”, or that “the defendant was deeply upset for the lack of care and love from the plaintiff as his eldest son”, because:
48.I agree with the submissions of Mr Ng. The defendant’s case on his craving for the plaintiff’s attention never featured until shortly before the hearing. In his original witness statement, there was not a shred of evidence upon which such a case could be based. Instead, in this earlier statement, the defendant explained how his relationship with the plaintiff had deteriorated and that he published the Offending Declaration for the purpose of avoiding any correlation between them. The defendant’s submission on his motive is therefore rejected. I find that the dominant motive of the Offending Words was to damage the plaintiff’s chance in the Election and therefore the defendant was actuated by malice. F. Quantum 49.I am indebted to Mr Ng and Mr Lau for their detailed summaries of comparable cases, which I found most helpful. On the other hand, I bear in mind that every case is decided on its own facts and there is usually no direct comparator. As explained by Le Pichon J (as she then was) in Hung Yuen Chan Robert v Hongkong Standard Newspapers Ltd & Others [1996] 4 HKC 519 at 536G-H:
50.In this regard, I would also mention that Mr Ng has provided the court with three detailed schedules of comparable cases which are classified as “Media Cases”, “Non-media Cases” and “Internet Cases”. The plaintiff relies on the “Media Cases” in support of its claim for general damages for the Offending Declaration, the “Non-media Cases” in support of its claim for aggravated damages for all the defamatory publications, and the “Internet Cases” in support of its claim for general damages for the Offending Videos. The above categorization appears to be a central theme running through the plaintiff’s case on quantum. The plaintiff submits that when a comparable case falls outside the categorization of the case under consideration, its reference value will be small. As such, the plaintiff seeks to distinguish some of the comparable cases submitted by the defendant primarily on the basis that they are not “Media Cases” or “Internet Cases”. In this regard, the plaintiff relies on International Social Service (Hong Kong Branch) v Vision First Limited (unrep., HCA 683/2014, 23 June 2017) and argues that in that case, Chung J expressly distinguished[1] between that case (which is an internet case) and media cases and held that because of the vast difference of extent of publication, the awards made in the mass media decisions cannot provide a good guidance. 51.With respect, I do not consider a straitjacket categorization of the cases to be particularly useful in the present assessment. In International Social Service (Hong Kong Branch), Chung J was distinguishing the small extent of publication in that case (i.e. 800)[2] with the larger extents of publication in mass media decisions. His Lordship’s focus was “the vast difference in the extent of publication”. He was certainly not saying that purely because of their categorizations, media cases will always have little relevance in internet cases, or vice versa, in the assessment process. Insofar as the extent of publication is concerned, I think ultimately it should be the number, instead of the medium, that matters. 52.In summary, the plaintiff submits that the court ought to award general and aggravated damages of respectively $1 million and $200,000 for the Offending Declaration. It is further submitted that, as the award for general damages should reflect the seriousness of the 2nd and 4th Offending Words, the court ought to award general damages of $300,000 for each of them and general damages of $200,000 for each of the 3rd and 5th Offending Words, with an award of aggravated damages of $200,000 for the 2nd to 5th Offending Words. 53.On the other hand, the defendant submits that the appropriate award for general damages for all Offending Words is $650,000 to $700,000. In case the court is minded to award aggravated damages, the defendant submits that the sum should be less than or in the range of $100,000. 54.In this assessment, I accept the meanings pleaded by the plaintiff in the Statement of Claim, as they are clearly the natural and ordinary meanings of the Offending Words. As explained below, Mr Lau has in fact only made limited challenges to those meanings. F1. Offending Declaration – 1st Offending Words 55.Mr Lau submits that the damage caused by the 1st Offending Words is on the low side because:
56.On the other hand, Mr Ng submits that the 1st Offending Words were seriously defamatory of the plaintiff because:
57.I agree with Mr Lau that nothing in the declaration relates to any criminal offences or the professionalism of the plaintiff. I also accept that the defendant had admitted liability at an early stage. 58.However, with respect to Mr Lau, I do not agree that the words “不肖” only means unfilial and does not mean unworthy, good-for-nothing, or not as good as his father in the context of this case. I agree with Mr Ng that “不肖” is defined in the leading dictionaries as including the said pleaded meanings[3]. Further, the words “不肖” must also be construed against the Offending Declaration as a whole. The 1st Offending Words included the allegation that the plaintiff’s rights of access to the ancestral hall would also be restricted (“其踏足陟雲祖堂祭祠之權利，亦將受到限制”). This supports a more serious defamatory meaning that the plaintiff was an unworthy man and/or the plaintiff was useless and good-for-nothing, as opposed to the lesser defamatory meaning that the plaintiff was just not as good as his father. A son who is not as good as his father would not be precluded from accessing the ancestral hall; but a son who is an unworthy man and/or is useless and good-for-nothing could justifiably be excluded from accessing the ancestral hall. Further, to publish the Offending Declaration on the entire front page of Oriental Daily News is a serious matter, and if the defamatory meaning of the words “不肖” were merely that the plaintiff was not as good as his father, then it was absolutely unnecessary for the defendant to have published the Offending Declaration on the entire front page of Oriental Daily News. Plainly, it was only because the defamatory meanings of the words “不肖” were that the plaintiff was an unworthy man and/or the plaintiff was useless and good-for-nothing that the defendant saw fit to publish the Offending Declaration on the entire front page of Oriental Daily News. 59.Further, I do not think the characterization of the plaintiff as not only “unfilial”, but unfilial to an extent that triggered a severance of father and son relationship, can be said to be not serious in itself. Instead, I think such an attack would no doubt cause considerable damage to the plaintiff as a public figure in the New Territories. 60.I also agree with the plaintiff that the defendant should be responsible for the republications. Given the prominent publication on the entire front page of Oriental Daily News, the sensational words used, and that both the plaintiff, the defendant and their family were apparently well-known in the North District/Ta Kwu Ling, the defendant must be considered to have intended or authorized the republications. 61.On the other hand, however, I have some doubt about the extent of publication of the Offending Declaration as asserted by the plaintiff. In paragraph 26 of the plaintiff’s closing submissions, it is submitted that the readership of the Offending Declaration is “in the millions”. In this regard, the plaintiff relies on three statements at page 4 of the same issue of Oriental Daily News which published the Offending Declaration, which states as follows:
62.I do not think I can simply adopt this figure as the extent of the publication of the Offending Declaration on 29 September 2018. This is because:
63.In the circumstances, whilst I accept that the print version of Oriental Daily News must still have a wide circulation, I do not think the plaintiff has proved that the extent of the readership of the Offending Declaration is as high as he has submitted. 64.In respect of quantum, I find the following cases to be appropriate comparable cases for the present case. 65.In Yu Sau Ning Homer v Wong Wan Keung & Ors [2020] HKDC 40, the defendants sent two letters to all the 250 units of an industrial building in which the defendants alleged that the plaintiff, then chairman of the management committee of the incorporated owners of the building, who was also a businessman sitting on a number of public bodies, (a) was engaged in illegal, unscrupulous and unethical conduct in the election of the chairman, and that he deliberately misled the owners into believing that he was the only candidate in the election when that was not the case; and (b) directed the management office to be his campaign headquarters and to prepare proxy forms pre-printed with his name so as to canvass votes illegally and mislead owners. Aggravated damages were awarded due to the fact that the defendants persisted in contesting the claim up to the every end and maintaining the defence of justification up until the lodging of their opening submissions and that they failed to apologize to the plaintiff notwithstanding the demand letters. The plaintiff was awarded general damages of $300,000 for each of the two offending letters and aggravated damages of $200,000 for each of the two offending letters. 66.In Chan Iu Seng v Ko Choi Hin & Ors (unrep., HCA 2901 & 2935/2004, 28 January 2010), the plaintiffs and the defendants were all members of a clan association. Both plaintiffs enjoyed substantial standing and reputation both within the association and in the community. Both held a number of public offices in Hong Kong and also held responsible positions in various consultative, advisory and voluntary organizations in Hong Kong and Zhongshan. The 1st plaintiff was also awarded the Bronze Bauhinia Star Medal in 2003. In a circular apparently sent or circulated to all members of the association (about 6,000), the defendants made unpleasant and serious attacks against the plaintiffs’ integrity, honesty and propriety in conduct, including conduct in the affairs of the association. They were accused of dishonesty, corruption, abusing their power and position in the association and even causing the death of a fellow director. The defendants had not retracted from the Circular. There was also no offer of apology. On the other hand, the defendants had run a restrictive defence against the claims. An award of $300,000 for each of the plaintiff in general damages was ordered. 67.In Lo Sam Shing v Li Fong (unrep., HCA 1803/2011, 14 March 2014), the defendant sent a letter which alleged the plaintiff, a candidate for the Tai Po District Council election, as being dishonest and failed to keep his promise to the defendant, guilty of undue delay in his informing the defendant of the decision of the government departments about the defendant’s complaint, incompetent and failing to discharge his duty as a District Councillor, not only failing to uphold the interests of the people in the Tai Po District, but was only interested in fame and glory, thereby causing harm to his constituency and “messing” up its business. The publication was made to about 25 recipients of politicians and public figures in the locality, many of whom had business relationships with the plaintiff. The judge observed that the libel was published with a malicious motive of discrediting the plaintiff and of prejudicing his chance of success in the election and the defendant must have known his defence of justification, fair comment, and qualified privilege were bound to fail, but the defendant chose to contest, causing the increased anxiety to the plaintiff. The plaintiff was awarded general damages in the sum of $200,000. Aggravated damages in the sum of $100,000 was awarded because the defendant knew that his allegations in the defamatory letters were untrue in fact and in substances. His motive in publishing the defamatory letters was to discredit the plaintiff and to prejudice his chance of success in the election and therefore malicious. He turned down the plaintiff’s invitation to apologize. Although he must have known his defences were bound to fail, he still chose to contest the action to its very end. 68.In terms of gravity, I think the defamations in the above cases are more serious than the Offending Declaration. On the other hand, the extent of publication of the Offending Declaration should be much higher than those in the comparable cases. However, I also note that the publications in those cases were directed at particular groups of readers who had specific relationship with the plaintiffs, which is not the situation in the present case. In Downtex Plc v Flatley [2004] EWHC 333 (QB), Tugendhat J said at §26 that:
69.After considering all the circumstances, I think the appropriate award for general damages in this case is $350,000. 70.As I have found that the defendant’s conduct was motived by the Election and he had failed to apologize, I think an award for aggravated damages in the amount of $100,000 is justified. F2. 1st Video – the 2nd Offending Words 71.The 2nd Offending Words is seriously defamatory. In particular, it meant that the plaintiff had committed false imprisonment and other misdeeds which could have criminal consequences. 72.As shown in the “properties” column of the 1st and 2nd Offending Videos, they were still available for viewing on the internet when the plaintiff’s solicitors downloaded the same onto their server on 31 August 2020. They have therefore remained on the internet for nearly two years. 73.I think general damages in the amount of $200,000 is appropriate. F3. 2nd Video – the 3rd Offending Words 74.As pleaded by the plaintiff, the sting in this defamation is about the plaintiff being unfilial. I agree that compared to the other videos, the damage caused by the 2nd Video should be less substantial. I think general damages in the amount of $80,000 is appropriate. F4. 3rd Video – 4th Offending Words 75.The 3rd Offending Video (which contained the 4th Offending Words) contains serious allegations about “覺悟前非，做返個好人”, “來欺負鄉民” and “將嗰啲壞事變本加厲”. However, I accept that unlike the 1st Video, there is no specific allegation that plaintiff had committed possible criminal offences. 76.As shown in the screen cap of the 3rd Offending Video, as of 16 November 2020 the 3rd Offending Video was still available for viewing on the internet and had remained on the internet for more than at least two years, whilst the number of hits thereto was 2,345. 77.I think general damages in the amount of $140,000 is appropriate. F5. 4th Video – 5th Offending Words 78.Whilst I agree with Mr Ng that the defamatory words “冇果樣，講嗰樣” is also an attack on the plaintiff’s personality, I think its damage is much lower than that caused by the 2nd and 4th Offending Words. 79.As shown in the screen capture of the 4th Offending Video, as of 16 November 2020, the 4th Offending Video was still available for viewing on the internet and had remained on the internet for more than at least two years, whilst the number of hits thereto was 2,833. 80.I think general damages in the amount of $100,000 is appropriate. F6. Aggravated Damages for the 2nd to 5th Offending Words 81.For the same reasons explained in paragraph 70 above, I think aggravated damages in the amount of $100,000 is appropriate. F. Conclusion 82.Based on the matters aforesaid, I make the following orders:
83.I thank Mr Lau and Mr Ng for their helpful assistance.
Mr. LAWRENCE NG instructed by Messrs Mike So, Joseph Lau & Co. for the plaintiff Mr. ROY LAU instructed by Messrs Francis Kong & Co. for the defendant [1] At §24 [2] See §23 [3] The Far East Chinese-English Dictionary (遠東漢英大辭典) defines “不肖” as meaning “a son who is not so good as his father”; “good-for-nothing; unworthy” (at p.25); The New Age Chinese-English Dictionary (新時代漢英大詞典) defines “不肖” as meaning “unworthy” or “undesirable elements” (at p.128); The Pinyin Chinese-English Dictionary (漢英詞典) defines “不肖” as meaning “unworthy” (at p.56); and The Zhongda Chinese-English Dictionary (中大漢英詞典) defines “不肖” as meaning “unworthy” (at p.60). | ||||||||||||||||||||
Cases cited in this judgment
Other judgments that cite this case