的近律師行前合夥人指控女律師偕夫持續騷擾誹謗 入稟申令禁制並索償

的近律師行前合夥人律師麥朗（Stefano Mariani）指控前女同事及其丈夫，自去年初至今持續向他作出騷擾，又向其前僱主惡意投訴，發電郵予的近及多間大律師事務所人員中傷麥朗，使其名譽掃地。麥朗上周入稟高等法院，要求法庭下令禁止2人再騷擾或誹謗自己，刪除所有相關言論，向麥朗書面道歉並賠償。

原告為麥朗（Stefano Mariani），被告為Jennifer Helen Baccanello及其丈夫。入稟狀指，被告夫婦自去年初起持續騷擾麥朗，向前僱主惡意及虛假地投訴麥朗，先後發電郵予的近合夥人鍾詠雪、Liberty大律師事務所資深大律師夏偉志及梁卓然和Pantheon大律師事務所大律師馬亞山等，惡意發佈不實言論誹謗麥朗個人及專業操守，使其名譽掃地，故入稟申令索償。

案件編號：HCA 896/2024

出名喎
女事主之後冇申請多次匿名令？

本身單匿名令裁決都有話男事主可能告誹謗

A further matter

155. After obtaining the AO, H&I has written to Bowers on 11 October 2023 (Hearing Bundle B2 page 428) enclosing the AO and stating:

“…should your client commence his threatened defamation proceedings against our client (“Threatened Proceedings”) it is most likely that you/your client will be in breach (which directly or indirectly) of the Anonymity Order, given that the two proceedings rely on the same factual matrix and, should those facts be made available to the public during the course of the Threatened Proceedings, members of the pubic would have little difficulty identifying our client as the Claimant in the DCEO proceedings.”

156. H&I then proposed that if the Respondent would proceed in the defamation action, the Claimant would consent for an anonymity order to be made in her favour in that action too.

157. During the hearing, Mr. Bartlett raised the question whether the AO (in particular the wordings used) meant that the Respondent (and his solicitors) would be stifled in naming the Claimant in a defamation action or risk a breach of a court order.

158. I think this matter is not relevant to the current application and in any case, premature: the Respondent has yet to commence any defamation action or make any application in that action regarding the issue. In any case, my decision in this application is to set aside the AO.