Hong Kong Court Orders Defunct Apple Daily to Pay HK$1.5 Million Over 2019 Defamatory Articles
A Hong Kong court has ordered the defunct pro-democracy newspaper Apple Daily to pay HK$1.5 million in damages to a listed company and two senior executives. The High Court ruling stems from a defamation lawsuit over ten online and print articles published in late 2019 that accused the plaintiffs of acting as spies for the Chinese Communist Party and the People’s Liberation Army.
According to a written judgment delivered by High Court Judge Tony Poon Siu-tung, Apple Daily failed to prove the allegations were true or to make any attempt to verify the claims before publication. The outlet also denied the plaintiffs an opportunity to respond or print a statement of denial.
The civil claim was brought forward by China Innovation Investment Limited, its chairperson Xiang Xin, and his wife, alternate director Kung Ching. The lawsuit targeted Apple Daily Limited and AD Internet Limited after the media organization shuttered in 2021 following government raids, asset freezes, and the arrest of senior staff under jailed media mogul Jimmy Lai Chee-ying.
An Uncontested Judgment and Financial Penalties
During the legal proceedings, the Apple Daily companies did not send representatives to attend the case and submitted no evidence to counter the civil claims, leaving the High Court to rule in favor of the plaintiffs. Judge Poon Siu-tung noted that the defamatory reports exposed the company and its executives to public contempt and ridicule.
The court broke down the financial penalties across the plaintiffs. Judge Poon ordered the defunct publishing companies to pay HK$600,000 to China Innovation Investment Limited, HK$500,000 to Xiang Xin, and HK$400,000 to Kung Ching, bringing the total payout to HK$1.5 million, or approximately US$191,200 according to South China Morning Post reporting.
Both Apple Daily Limited and AD Internet Limited, alongside another corporate entity tied to the media group, were formally designated as “prohibited organisations” by the Hong Kong government in March. The financial liabilities add to the deepening legal fallout surrounding the shuttered media group.
The 2019 Allegations and Real-World Fallout
The contested articles were published between November 23 and December 7, 2019, at the height of the anti-extradition law protests and civil unrest shaking Hong Kong. The reports relied heavily on allegations made by self-proclaimed former spy William Wang Liqiang, who claimed that the Communist Party used China Innovation as a front to interfere in Hong Kong politics, infiltrate universities, and influence media organizations.
In their lawsuit, Xiang and Kung stated that Apple Daily’s coverage claimed they received annual funding from Beijing to infiltrate protests and colluded with triad groups to promote the Communist Party. The couple asserted that the reports triggered severe personal and professional repercussions, including being blocked from leaving Taiwan while facing local spying investigations.
Although they were ultimately cleared without charges and permitted to return to Hong Kong, the fallout crippled their business operations. The couple stated that their bank accounts were abruptly cancelled, triggering a sharp decline in their company’s stock prices.
Legal Entanglements and Prior Settlements
The litigation journey involved multiple international and local media defendants before narrowing down. Xiang and Kung initially filed lawsuits against international outlets including Australian publications The Age Company, Fairfax Media Publications, and Nine Network Australia, though those specific actions did not proceed to trial.
The plaintiffs also named former Apple Daily editor Ryan Law in their legal filings. However, the couple reached a private settlement with Law before the formal hearings began, leaving the defunct corporate entities of Apple Daily Limited and AD Internet Limited as the final remaining defendants held accountable by the High Court.
As the legal chapter closes on these specific defamation claims, the case highlights the enduring fallout from the turbulent media landscape of 2019.
