Chang Wa Shan v Esther Chan Pui Kwan (2018) 21 HKCFAR 370 [2018] 5 HKC 397 [2018] HKCFA 29 (No Defamation At All – HKCFA Unanimously Allowed the Appeal of Esther Chan Pui Kwan)
Barristers Mr James Price QC and Mr Jonathan Chang, instructed by Baker & McKenzie Solicitors, for the Plaintiff (Appellant in FACV 3/2018 and Respondent in FACV 2/2018)
Barristers Mr Kenneth K Y Lam and Ms Angela Mui, instructed by Lui & Law Solicitors, for the Defendant (Appellant in FACV 2/2018 and Respondent in FACV 3/2018)
http://www.hklii.org/eng/hk/cases/hkcfa/2018/29.html
被曾華山控誹謗 陳佩君終極勝訴
已故華懋集團主席龔如心的遺產官司餘波未了，當年商人陳振聰一方盤問華懋證人梁錦濠時，提到華懋把地皮賤賣給他，更聲稱大輝集團主席曾華山是「爆料人」，曾華山其後發現是梁錦濠的前女友陳佩君向陳振聰一方提供文件資料，遂控告陳佩君誹謗；曾華山於原審被判敗訴，其後上訴成功；陳佩君不服並上訴至終審法院，昨獲裁定上訴得直，反敗為勝。
終院昨頒下判詞，5位法官一致裁定陳佩君上訴得直。對於原告一方表示，陳佩君的言論會令人誤會他出賣生意夥伴，影響其聲譽，惟終院認為，陳的言論並非惡意虛假陳述，曾華山亦未能證明，外界會因此而誤以為他出賣別人。
終院民事上訴2018年第2號
上訴人﹕陳佩君又名陳佩珍（「被告人」）
答辯人﹕曾華山 （「原告人」）
主審法官﹕終審法院常任法官李義、終審法院常任法官鄧國楨、終審法院常任法官霍兆剛、終審法院非常任法官司徒敬及終審法院非常任法官華學佳勳爵
法律代表﹕
御用大律師James Price先生及大律師張天任先生（由貝克‧麥堅時律師事務所延聘）代表原告人（終院民事上訴2018年第2號的答辯人，終院民事上訴2018年第3號的上訴人）
大律師林嘉仁先生及大律師梅蕊婷女士（由呂羅律師事務所延聘）代表被告人（終院民事上訴2018年第2號的上訴人，終院民事上訴2018年第3號的答辯人）
摘要﹕
- 原告人以被告人短暫形式誹謗及惡意虛假爲基礎提出申索。這是2009年5月開始審理，備受矚目的龔如心巨額遺產案件所引起的附屬訴訟。
- 在遺囑認證訴訟中，陳振聰聲稱龔如心於2006年訂立了一份新遺囑，取代其早前於2002年訂立，指明華懋慈善基金有限公司 (「華懋」) 爲主要受益人的另一份遺囑。陳振聰其後就僞造罪受審、被定罪及判處監禁。
- 被告人與梁錦濠(「梁先生」)曾是朋友，並同居三年。在遺囑訴訟中，梁先生爲華懋一方作證。被告人提議爲她另一位朋友蕭博士與遺囑訴訟中陳振聰的律師團隊（主要是麥至理律師及御用大律師Ian Mill）充當「中間人」，目的是爲了提供資料質疑梁先生的可信性。有關資料包括梁先生與華懋一宗土地交易的文件，可用於盤問梁先生以顯示他曾從華懋獲得巨大經濟利益，因而並非公正可靠的證人。換取可以使用這些文件的初步付款要求遭拒絕。然而，審訊中梁先生接受盤問時，被告人告知陳振聰的律師團隊，文件提供者同意他們使用這些文件，但條件是假如陳振聰勝訴，文件提供者就會得到回報。
- 由於預料法官會問及文件從何而來，大律師Ian Mill在恢復進行聆訊前，透過麥至理律師致電被告人詢問誰是文件提供者。根據本案特委法官的裁斷，被告人當時説提供文件的是原告人「Edmund Tsang」(即曾華山)。在公開聆訊回覆法官詢問時，大律師Ian Mill將此資料轉告法官。本案中，雙方沒有爭議被告人的陳述虛假，以及原告人並非文件提供者的事實。原告人表示，被告人的虛假陳述以及媒體對此事的報導，令其聲譽嚴重受損。他以短暫形式誹謗及惡意虛假爲基礎向她提告。原告人表示他過往與梁先生有業務往來，他被指稱提供資料指證梁先生的這個行爲，會令人以爲他出賣朋友，幫助陳振聰提出缺乏理據的申索，帶有令人不齒、惟利是圖的動機而作出此行爲，令其聲譽受損。
- 大律師Ian Mill在公開聆訊所言，媒體公正準確地報導法庭公開聆訊中的内容，毫無疑問均受到絕對特權保護。故此，原告人不能依賴該些發布而提出申索。本案問題是被告人是否也受該絕對特權的免責保護。
- 本院以大多數（終審法院常任法官鄧國楨持異議）裁定按照法律，被告人對大律師Ian Mill及麥至理律師所作的陳述不受絕對特權保障。
- 然而，本院裁定，原告人聲稱遭受的聲譽損害，取決於被告人向其發布陳述的人士當時已知悉的事實，會導致他們將被告人的陳述理解爲具有上文所述出賣朋友、協助缺乏理據的訴訟、且藉此從中獲益的影射含義。本院一致裁定原告人未能適當提出或證明這些事實。故此，具影射含義的説法並不成立。因此，這個短暫形式誹謗的申索失敗。
- 本院同樣一致地裁定，原告人以惡意虛假爲基礎的交替申索失敗，因爲他未能證明其追討的損失是被告人虛假陳述所產生的特殊損害，而這是法律上的一個基本要求。然而，終審法院常任法官鄧國楨更進一步認爲，駁回惡意虛假的申索的額外理由爲，基於支持延伸絕對特權免責辯護的相同政策考慮，原告人所申索的損害賠償不能被討回。
- 就終院民事上訴2018年第2號案件，本院一致裁定被告人上訴得直；終院民事上訴2018年第3號案件，本院則一致駁回原告人的上訴。
FACV No. 2 of 2018
APPELLANT: Esther Chan Pui Kwan (陳佩君) also known as Chan Pui Chun (陳佩珍) (the “defendant”)
RESPONDENT: Chang Wa Shan (the “plaintiff”)
JUDGES: Mr Justice Ribeiro PJ, Mr Justice Tang PJ, Mr Justice Fok PJ, Mr Justice Stock NPJ and Lord Walker of Gestingthorpe NPJ
REPRESENTATION:
Barristers Mr James Price QC and Mr Jonathan Chang, instructed by Baker & McKenzie Solicitors, for the Plaintiff (Appellant in FACV 3/2018 and Respondent in FACV 2/2018)
Barristers Mr Kenneth K Y Lam and Ms Angela Mui, instructed by Lui & Law Solicitors, for the Defendant (Appellant in FACV 2/2018 and Respondent in FACV 3/2018)
SUMMARY:
- The plaintiff’s claim for slander and malicious falsehood against the defendant is satellite litigation arising out of the high-profile probate action relating to the vast estate of Nina Wang the hearing of which began in May 2009.
- In the probate action, Tony Chan claimed that Nina Wang had made a new will in 2006, displacing Chinachem Charitable Foundation Limited (“Chinachem”), the major beneficiary of the estate in her earlier will made in 2002. Tony Chan was subsequently tried, convicted and imprisoned for forgery.
- The defendant once was a friend of Gilbert Leung (“Mr Leung”) with whom she had cohabited for three years. Mr Leung was to give evidence for Chinachem and the defendant offered to act “as middleman” between Dr Siu, another friend of hers, and Tony Chan’s legal team in the probate action, principally Mr Jonathan Midgley and Mr Ian Mill QC, with a view to providing information aimed at discrediting Mr Leung. The information involved documents concerning a land transaction between Mr Leung and Chinachem which might be used in cross-examination to suggest that Mr Leung had received a substantial financial benefit from Chinachem and was not an impartial or reliable witness. Initial demands for payment to be able to use the documents were refused. But when Mr Leung was being cross-examined at the trial, the defendant informed Tony Chan’s legal team that the source of the documents agreed that they could be used on the understanding that if Tony Chan were to win, the source would be rewarded.
- Anticipating that the Judge would ask about their provenance, Mr Mill, through Mr Midgley, asked the defendant in a telephone call just before resumption of the hearing, who was the source of the documents and, the Recorder found, the defendant named the plaintiff “Edmund Tsang” as the source. That information was then conveyed by Mr Mill to the Judge in open court in reply to the Judge’s question. It is not disputed that the defendant’s statement was false and that the plaintiff was not the source of the documents. He claimed that his reputation was seriously injured by the defendant’s false statement and the publicity given to it by press reports. He sued her for slander and malicious falsehood. The plaintiff alleged that such reputational injury would flow from the fact that he had had business dealings with Mr Leung so that people would regard his alleged act of supplying information to be used against Mr Leung as an act of betrayal, as helping Tony Chan pursue an unmeritorious claim and as an act done with a disreputable mercenary motive.
- What Mr Mill said in open court and the press reports which fairly and accurately repeated what was said in open court were undoubtedly covered by absolute privilege so that the plaintiff could not mount a claim relying on such publications. The question was whether such absolute privilege also protected the defendant from liability.
- The majority of the Court (Mr Justice Tang PJ dissenting) found that as a matter of law, the defendant’s statement to Mr Mill and Mr Midgley was not covered by absolute privilege.
- However, the Court found that the reputational damage the plaintiff alleged he had suffered depended on the persons to whom the defendant’s statement was published having knowledge of facts which would lead them to understand the defendant’s statement as carrying the innuendo meanings regarding betrayal, assisting an unmeritorious action and seeking to profit from doing this, mentioned above. The Court unanimously held that such facts were neither properly alleged nor proved by the plaintiff, so that the innuendo meanings were not established. The slander claim therefore failed.
- The Court was also unanimous in holding that the plaintiff’s alternative claim for malicious falsehood failed because he was unable to establish that the losses which he sought to recover represented special damage flowing from the defendant’s false statement, an essential requirement of the law. However, Tang PJ also rejected the malicious falsehood claim on the basis that the claimed damages could not be recovered for the same reasons of policy as those justifying the extension of the defence of absolute privilege.
- The Court unanimously allowed the appeal of the defendant (FACV 2 of 2018), and dismissed the appeal of plaintiff (FACV 3 of 2018).
Mr Justice Ribeiro PJ:
- The Court unanimously allows the appeal of Esther Chan Pui Kwan, the appellant in FACV 2 of 2018, and dismisses the appeal of Chang Wa Shan, the appellant in FACV 3 of 2018. We unanimously make an order nisi that Esther Chan Pui Kwan should have 50% of her costs of the action down to the end of the proceedings before the Recorder (so restoring his Order of 28 January 2016) and all her costs of the appeals to the Court of Appeal and to this Court. The parties are at liberty to lodge written submissions on costs within 14 days of the handing down of this judgment and to lodge submissions in reply within 14 days thereafter. In default of the lodging of such submissions, the order nisi shall stand as an order absolute without further direction.
Barristers Mr James Price, QC and Mr Jonathan Chang, instructed by Baker & McKenzie Solicitors, for the Plaintiff (Appellant in FACV 3/2018 and Respondent in FACV 2/2018)
Barristers Mr Kenneth K Y Lam and Ms Angela Mui, instructed by Lui & Law Solicitors, for the Defendant (Appellant in FACV 2/2018 and Respondent in FACV 3/2018)
http://orientaldaily.on.cc/cnt/news/20180712/mobile/odn-20180712-0712_00176_090.html
法庭：曾華山告誹謗 陳佩君終極勝訴
已故華懋集團主席龔如心的遺產案於○九年審訊時，引發另一宗民事誹謗案，商人曾華山被錯誤指為是向陳振聰陣營提供文件，用來盤問華懋一方的證人梁錦濠。曾華山感到「被屈」成為「爆料人」，會令其他人以為他是「二五仔」出賣朋友，使他的聲譽和生意受損。他得悉梁的前女友陳佩君是此事的始作俑者後，一○年興訟控告她誹謗。案件纏訟八年，終審法院昨
裁定陳佩君終極勝訴，並下令敗訴的曾華山要支付一半訟費予陳。
案件在原審時，高院原訟庭裁定陳佩君是一名潛在證人，她當時向陳振聰律師團提供資訊，對話內容受到「法律絕對特權」保護，因此判曾華山敗訴。
官指曾華山未受特殊損害
案件最終要由終院裁斷，終院的判詞昨指出，陳佩君為免真正「爆料人」的身份被公開，她亦不會出庭作供受盤問，故她當時身份只屬「中間人」，未能獲得「絕對特權」保護。惟終院指，陳振聰律師團隊當時不認識曾華山，亦不會覺得曾華山為獲益而出賣朋友；而陳佩君只是錯誤指出曾華山向律師團隊提供了一份文件，此舉未有令到曾華山受到特殊損害，故終院判陳佩君終審上訴得直。
案件編號：FACV 2 & 3/2018
https://m.mingpao.com/ins/instantnews/web_tc/article/20180711/s00001/1531298901823
被曾華山控誹謗 陳佩君上訴終院得直
已故華懋集團主席龔如心830億元遺產案審訊期間，陳振聰的代表律師呈上文件，質疑華懋慈善基金的證人梁錦濠收受華懋利益，但其間誤指大輝集團主席曾華山是「爆料人」。曾華山不滿被人誤以為是「二五仔」，興訟控告梁錦濠的前女友陳佩君誹謗。高院早年裁定曾華山敗訴，他提出上訴後獲裁定得直，並獲判3萬元賠償。惟陳佩君再提上訴，終院今裁定陳佩君上訴得直。
http://hd.stheadline.com/news/realtime/hk/1262769/
龔如心遺產「爆料人」誹謗案 陳佩君上訴得直
華懋集團前主席龔如心的遺產案審訊期間，代表陳振聰的大律師誤指大輝集團主席曾華山向陳一方提供文件資料，用以盤問華懋證人梁錦濠。曾華山入稟控告以中間人身份提供文件的梁錦濠前女友陳佩君誹謗，他在原審時被判敗訴，後來上訴成功，可獲賠償3萬元。陳佩君上訴至終審法院，終院今早頒下判詞，5位法官一致裁定陳上訴得直。
終院常任法官鄧國禎認為，與訟人士均享有豁免權，不因其言論而被起訴，以鼓勵與訟人士在法庭程序中暢所欲言。原告一方認為陳只是消息人士，卻非在庭上作供的證人，她不應獲特權保障。但鄧官認為，獲保障的包括任何與訴訟有關係的人士，何況陳並非單是消息人士，她本可以親自上庭作供。即使陳提供的消息是虛假的，法庭亦應保障她免於被起訴的恐懼。
Hong Kong Defamation Law 