Choy Yuen on, David v. Lam Kin Chung and Another

On 20 October 2026, the Court of First Instance (Ng J) handed down judgment in _Choy Yuen On, David v Lam Kin Chung and Another_ [2026] HKCFI 5696, dismissing the Plaintiff's defamation claims against both Defendants in two consolidated actions (HCA 2599/2014 and HCA 110/2018). Mr Jason Pow SC and Mr Peter K C Wong, instructed by Rowdget W Young & Co, acted for the successful 1st Defendant; the 2nd Defendant appeared in person.

The Plaintiff, a former director of Soka Gakkai International of Hong Kong Limited (the Association), sued two fellow members over publications criticising the Association's 2011 property transactions: the sale of the Chai Wan Culture Centre for $80 million and the purchase of the Sai Wan Ho Culture Centre for $23.8 million. The Defendants alleged both transactions were struck at significant undervalue and overvalue respectively. The complained-of publications comprised the 1st Defendant's AGM requisitions and post-AGM statement, the 2nd Defendant's letter statement at the AGM, his 2015 email statement, and a WhatsApp message.

The court held that:

(1) The 1st Defendant's Requisitions did not identify the Plaintiff as the target. The hypothetical reasonable reader would understand the questions as directed at the Committee collectively. The Plaintiff's pleaded case that he was "the only person" entrusted with the sale was contradicted by the 2018 Report, which named CY Ng as the responsible person and the Plaintiff as merely a working group member tasked with liaising with estate agents (§§65-67, 70-72).

(2) The 1st Defendant's Post-AGM Statement, while naming the Plaintiff in one paragraph, did not accuse him of wrongdoing. The remaining paragraphs criticised the Association's corporate governance and the Committee as a body. Applying _Knupffer v London Express Newspaper Ltd_ [1944] AC 116, the court held a reasonable reader would not understand the words as targeting the Plaintiff individually (§§86-88, 95).

(3) The 1st Defendant did not publish the 2nd Defendant's Email Statement at the September and October 2015 seminars. The evidence showed he distributed different leaflets (CB1 #52), a separate document. The Plaintiff's witnesses could not reliably identify which document was distributed (§§107, 115-116, 128, 131-132).

(4) The 2nd Defendant's Letter Statement, Email Statement and WhatsApp Message did not refer to the Plaintiff in any defamatory sense. The Email Statement named him only in para 3.1 regarding renovation works, but read as a whole it posed questions to the Committee rather than made accusations (§§146, 156, 159, 167-168).

The Plaintiff's claims were dismissed with costs to both Defendants, the 1st Defendant obtaining a certificate for two counsel.

Why it matters

Pleadings must align with the evidence on identification. Where a plaintiff pleads he was "the only person" responsible for a transaction, that assertion must be supported by contemporaneous documents, not contradicted by them. Where multiple similar documents are in circulation, plaintiffs must plead the specific document allegedly published on each occasion; failure to do so defeats that cause of action.