30 Oct 2025法庭線#7461
黎智英控告《大公報》誹謗 申修訂指控詳情 依賴101篇文章證「聲譽謀殺」
Next Media founder Jimmy Lai filed a defamation lawsuit in the High Court in 2020 against Ta Kung Pao over 101 articles, including one headlined “Route for ‘fleeing’ by mastermind behind Hong Kong chaos exposed, fee HK$1 million”, which alleged that Lai intended to abscond after being released on bail. The case returned to the District Court on Thursday (30th), where Lai’s side applied for leave to amend the writ of summons and relied on 101 articles to prove that Ta Kung Pao had maliciously smeared him. Judge Ko King-shiu will deliver his judgment within three months.
Lai’s side said one article described him as a “black hand behind Hong Kong chaos” who “spared no effort to bring harm to Hong Kong”, causing him “reputational murder”. Another article featured a doctored image showing Lai in a fictitious prison. Lai’s side criticised the material as malicious personal attacks rather than news reports. Ta Kung Pao’s side questioned how Lai’s side had established that the articles were “maliciously defamatory” of Lai and which parts were false, and said the plaintiff was required to prove that the defendant knew the contents were false.
壹傳媒創辦人黎智英於 2020 年入稟高等法院，控告《大公報》誹謗（法律 101 文章）、發布題為〈亂港頭目謀『著草』路線曝光 收費100萬〉的文章，指黎欲棄保潛逃。案件周四（30 日）在區域法院再訊，黎一方申請許可修訂傳訊令狀，依賴 101 篇文章證明《大公報》惡意中傷黎智英。法官高勁修將於 3 個月內頒判詞。
黎一方指，其中一篇文章形容黎是「亂港黑手」、「禍害香港不遺餘力」，對黎造成「聲譽謀殺」。另有文章載有一幅改圖，顯示黎身處虛假的監獄，黎一方批評，內容非新聞報道，而是對黎的惡意人身攻擊。《大公報》一方質疑，黎一方沒說明上述文章如何對黎「惡意誹謗」、哪部分內容不實，又指原告須證明被告知悉內容虛假。
24 Jun 2025法庭線#6944
何君堯控郭榮鏗、林卓廷、毛孟靜誹謗 官准何依賴林暴動定罪 另准林押後待暴動上訴結果
Junius Ho filed a High Court action in 2019, alleging that three former Legislative Council members, Alvin Yeung, Lam Cheuk-ting and Claudia Mo, defamed him by calling him a “triad” while protesting outside the Police Tactical Unit Headquarters. He sought orders requiring the three to pay damages and restraining them from making related statements. The case was heard at the High Court on Tuesday (24th).
Ho’s side had earlier applied to adduce as evidence the judgment convicting Lam of rioting in the 7.21 case. Lam’s side submitted that he was appealing against his riot conviction and sought an adjournment of the case. High Court Judge Keith Kar Hung Yeung approved both applications and also adjourned the proceedings against Yeung and Mo pending the outcome of the appeal.
何君堯 2019 年入稟高等法院，指 3 名前立法會議員郭榮鏗、林卓廷及毛孟靜在警察機動部隊總部外抗議時，誹謗他為「黑社會」，要求頒令 3 人賠償及禁制他們作相關言論。案件周二（24 日）於高等法院聆訊。
何君堯一方早前提出加入林卓廷在 721 案中暴動罪成的判決作為證據。林卓廷一方則提出，林正就暴動定罪提上訴，望官准押後本案。高院法官楊家雄決定批准兩方申請，並一併押後針對郭榮鏗及毛孟靜的訴訟，待上訴有結果。
16 Apr 2025獨媒#6702
林卓廷控告何君堯誹謗 官批准無限期押後案件 以待7.21暴動上訴
Legislative Council member Junius Ho commented during a Facebook livestream in 2019 on the attack by white-clad men in Yuen Long on 7.21. Democratic Party member Lam Cheuk-ting, dissatisfied that the remarks had damaged his reputation, filed a defamation lawsuit against Ho. The trial is scheduled to begin on August 4 this year and is expected to last eight days. The case came before the High Court for a pre-trial review today (the 16th). Ho applied to amend his grounds of defence to add Lam’s conviction in the 7.21 riot case as one item of evidence. Lam then applied for the case to be adjourned sine die pending his appeal in the 7.21 riot case. Judge Keith Kar Hung Yeung approved Ho’s additional evidence and, citing factors including fairness and time, also granted an indefinite adjournment pending the outcome of Lam’s appeal.
立法會議員何君堯於2019年在 Facebook 直播時，就7.21元朗白衣人襲擊事件作出評論，民主黨林卓廷不滿有關言論詆毀其聲譽，入稟控告何君堯誹謗。案件已排期於今年8月4日開審，料需時8天。案件今（16日）於高院作審前覆核。何君堯申請修訂辯護理由，新增林卓廷的7.21暴動定罪作為證據之一。林卓廷遂申請無限期押後案件（adjournment sine die），以待他就7.21暴動案上訴。法官楊家雄批准何新增證據，但同時亦基於公平性、時間等因素，批准案件無限期押後，以等待林卓廷的上訴結果。
27 Jan 2025法庭線#4469
黎智英控告《大公報》誹謗 早前申設陪審團被拒 聆案官轉介區院審理
Media tycoon Jimmy Lai filed a lawsuit in the High Court in 2020 against Ta Kung Pao for defamation over an article headlined “Escape route for ‘Hong Kong chaos ringleader’ exposed—charges of 1 million,” alleging that Lai intended to abandon bail and flee. Lai’s application for a jury trial was earlier rejected, and the case came before the High Court again on Monday (27th). Lai’s side argued that the case involved the public interest and should remain in the High Court. Ta Kung Pao argued that, following the court’s earlier rejection of the jury application, the case could be referred to the District Court. High Court master Phoebe Ho Yee Man ordered the case to be referred to the District Court because the maximum damages involved did not exceed 3 million, and ordered Lai’s side to pay the costs of the hearing.
壹傳媒創辦人黎智英於 2020 年入稟高院，控告《大公報》誹謗、發布題為〈亂港頭目謀『著草』路線曝光 收費100萬〉的文章，指黎欲棄保潛逃。黎一方早前申請審訊設陪審團被拒，案件周一（27 日）在高等法院再訊。
黎一方認為本案涉及公眾利益，應留在高院審理；《大公報》則指，法庭早前拒絕設陪審團的申請，認為可以轉介區域法院審理。高院聆案官萬可宜指，由於本案所涉最高賠償金額，不多於 300 萬元，下令轉介區院審理，並要求黎一方支付是次訟費。
10 Oct 2024法庭線#4135
黎智英控告《大公報》誹謗 申審訊設陪審團被拒 官：議題複雜不宜由陪審團處理
Next Digital founder Jimmy Lai filed a writ in the High Court in 2020 alleging that Ta Kung Pao had defamed him in an article headlined “Route for ‘Hong Kong-disrupting ringleader’ to flee exposed; fee HK$1 million”. The article alleged that Lai wanted to abscond after abandoning bail. Lai sought orders restraining Ta Kung Pao from defaming him, as well as an apology and damages. Lai’s side applied for a jury trial, while Ta Kung Pao opposed the application. In a judgment handed down on Thursday (the 10th), Judge Au-Yeung Kwai-yu dismissed Lai’s application and ordered him to pay Ta Kung Pao’s legal costs of HK$300,000.
The judgment said that even where a case involved the public interest, political figures and politically sensitive issues, the court would not necessarily empanel a jury. The case involved a large volume of documents, while Ta Kung Pao’s defence contained a mixture of factual and legal issues and had a degree of complexity, making it unsuitable for a jury to handle. The judge considered that without a jury, the trial judge could read the article in advance and draw inferences after considering both sides’ submissions, and believed that the trial would be shorter.
壹傳媒創辦人黎智英 2020 年入稟高等法院，指控《大公報》發布題為「亂港頭目謀『著草』路線曝光 收費100萬」的文章，指稱黎欲棄保潛逃，內容涉及誹謗。黎要求法庭頒令禁制《大公報》誹謗、道歉及賠償。黎一方申請於審訊中設陪審團，《大公報》則反對。法官歐陽桂如周四（10 日）頒下判詞，駁回黎一方的申請，黎另須向《大公報》一方支付 30 萬元訟費。
判詞指，即使案件涉及公眾利益、政治人物及政治敏感議題，法庭亦不一定在審訊中設陪審團。而本案涉及大量文件，《大公報》一方的辯解亦混雜事實及法律議題，有一定復雜性，不宜交由陪審團處理。法官認為，如審訊不設陪審團，主審法官可事先閱讀文章，再考慮雙方陳詞作推論，相信審訊時間會較短。
3 Oct 2024法庭線#4115
黎智英指《大公報》誹謗 申請審訊設陪審團 《大公報》反對
Next Digital founder Jimmy Lai filed a suit in the High Court in 2020 accusing Ta Kung Pao of publishing an article titled “Hong Kong chaos leader’s route for ‘going on the run’ exposed, fee HK$1 million”. The article alleged that Lai intended to abscond after abandoning bail, and Lai said its contents were defamatory. Lai asked the court to restrain Ta Kung Pao from defaming him and to order an apology and damages. Lai’s side wanted the trial to be heard by a jury, while Ta Kung Pao opposed the application. Judge Au-yeung Kwai-yu heard the parties’ submissions on Thursday (the 3rd) and will hand down judgment within a month.
Lai’s side said that Lai intended to testify in the case and was a well-known figure whose cases attracted widespread attention. It questioned whether Ta Kung Pao had knowingly and maliciously published the article despite knowing that its contents were false. It also said that Ta Kung Pao was widely circulated in Hong Kong and had a large number of readers, and that the case involved the public interest, so the trial should have a jury.
Ta Kung Pao’s side argued that if the case were tried by a jury, the judge would be unable to read the article before the trial or ask the legal representatives questions to clarify doubts. The jury might also need more time to examine the article in assessing Ta Kung Pao’s state of mind when it published it.
壹傳媒創辦人黎智英 2020 年入稟高等法院，指控《大公報》發布題為「亂港頭目謀『著草』路線曝光 收費100萬」的文章，指稱黎欲棄保潛逃，內容涉及誹謗。黎要求法庭頒令禁制《大公報》誹謗、道歉及賠償。黎一方希望審訊設陪審團，《大公報》則反對，法官歐陽桂如周四（3 日）聽畢雙方陳詞，將於一個月內頒下判詞。
黎一方指，黎智英打算就本案作供，並指他為知名人士，所涉案件均受廣泛關注，質疑《大公報》明知文章內容虛假仍惡意發布。加上《大公報》在本港廣泛流傳、有大量數者，本案涉及公眾利益，審訊應設有陪審團。
《大公報》一方則認為，若本案由陪審團審理，法官便不能在審訊前閱讀文章，或向法律代表提問以澄清疑惑，陪審團亦可能需更長時間審視文章，以評估《大公報》發布文章時的思想狀態。
3 Sept 2024法庭線#4016
中國創新投資主席向心夫婦控《蘋果》誹謗 官6個月內頒判詞
The chairman of listed company China Innovation Investment Limited, Xin (1963) Xiang, and his wife, Ching Kung, filed a lawsuit in the High Court at the end of 2019, accusing Apple Daily of publishing false news and falsely alleging that the plaintiffs were engaged in espionage. They said the reports were defamatory and caused them loss, and sought an injunction barring the continued publication of the relevant articles, as well as damages. The case was heard in the High Court on Tuesday (the 3rd).
Xin (1963) Xiang and his wife testified that they had been investigated by the Taiwan authorities over an espionage case, but that in 2023 the authorities decided not to prosecute them and lifted the restrictions on their departure. After hearing their testimony, Judge Tony Siu Tung Poon said a judgment would be handed down within six months.
上市公司中國創新投資有限公司主席向心及其妻龔青，2019 年底入稟高等法院，控告《蘋果日報》發布假新聞，失實指稱原告從事間諜活動，內容涉誹謗，並招致原告蒙受損失，要求法院頒令禁制繼續發布相關文章，並作出賠償。案件周二（3 日）於高院聆訊。
向心夫婦供稱，他們曾因間諜案遭台灣當局調查，但於 2023 年當局決定不再起訴他們，並撤銷離境限制。法官潘兆童聽畢兩人供詞後，指將於 6 個月內頒下判詞。
16 Feb 2023法庭線#6062
何君堯涉指林卓廷煽動721、林提控誹謗 何逾期申設陪審團遭駁回、須向林付15萬訟費
Former Democratic Party Legislative Council member Lam Cheuk-ting earlier filed a defamation lawsuit against Legislative Council member Ho Jun-yao, alleging that Ho posted a video on Facebook in October 2019 claiming that Lam had helped incite the 7.21 Yuen Long attack. Ho’s side earlier applied for a jury trial, arguing that the case involved prominent political figures. High Court Judge Au-Yeung Kwai-yu handed down a judgment on Friday (the 17th), rejecting Ho’s application and ordering him to pay Lam 150,000 in costs.
The judge criticised Ho for deliberately failing to comply with a court order and making the application out of time, noting that the right to a jury trial was not absolute and that the current trend in defamation cases was not to have jury trials. As Ho had made the application late deliberately and without sufficient reason, had failed to comply with the court order, and could not demonstrate any material change in circumstances warranting the original court order being overturned, the judge dismissed his application.
前民主黨立法會議員林卓廷，早前入稟控告立法會議員何君堯誹謗，指何在 2019 年 10 月在 Facebook 發布片段，稱林有份煽動 7.21 元朗襲擊事件。何君堯一方早前提出申請，本案涉及具知名度的政治人物，希望本案設有陪審團。法官歐陽桂如周五（17 日）於高等法院頒下判詞，駁回何君堯的申請，並下令何向林卓廷支付 15 萬訟費。
法官批評，何故意沒有遵從法庭命令，逾時提出申請，而陪審團審訊權利並非絕對，現時審理誹謗案的趨勢為不設陪審團。何在故意及沒有充分理由下，逾期提出申請，不遵從法庭命令，以及不能證明情況有實質改變，推翻原有的法庭命令，故駁回其申請。
Translations are supplied by the source workbook. Consult the original reporting for context.
