The respondents were the providers, administrators and managers of a website which hosts one of the most popular internet discussion forums in Hong Kong. In three separate batches, in 2007, 2008 and 2009, defamatory statements were posted by users of that forum concerning the appellants who were the publishers of two popular daily newspapers, the group that owns those publishers, and the group’s chairman. The respondents were initially unaware of the 2007 and 2008 statements but removed them after complaints from the appellant. The 2007 statements were removed more than eight months after the complaints; and the 2008 statements, after three and a half hours. The respondents themselves discovered the 2009 statements about 12 hours after they had been posted and immediately took them down. The appellants’ actions against the respondents for libel were tried in the Court of First Instance before a Judge without a jury. The Judge awarded $100,000 in respect of 2007 statements but dismissed the appellants’ claims regarding both the 2008 and 2009 statements. The Court of Appeal upheld the Judge’s findings, holding that the respondents had innocently disseminated the 2008 and 2009 statements. The award in respect of the 2007 statements was not challenged by the respondents. The appellants’ appeal to the Court of Final Appeal was dismissed. The Court was asked to consider the extent to which the providers of an internet forum may be held liable for the posting of defamatory statements by its users. In particular, it had to decide whether, in law, such internet forum providers are to be regarded as “publishers” of such defamatory postings and whether the common law defence of innocent dissemination is applicable to them. The Court distinguished between the position of a “subordinate publisher” and that of an occupier of premises whose notice board or whose walls have been used by an unauthorised person to post up a defamatory statement. A subordinate publisher knowingly and actively participates in the dissemination of the article in question and to escape liability must show that he did not know, despite having taken all reasonable care, that the article contained libellous statements. The occupier in contrast plays no role in any scheme of distribution and merely has imposed on him the offending notice or graffiti. He cannot be held liable unless the libellous statement is allowed to remain in place in circumstances which justify the inference that he must have ratified the statement. The Court held that an internet forum provider is not like a notice board owner and not a first or main publisher, but qualifies as a subordinate publisher entitled to rely on the defence of innocent dissemination. The Court held that the respondents had established that defence in relation to the 2008 and 2009 statements. They did not know the content of each posting; did not authorize publication; did not exercise editorial or general control over the publication process; and so did not realistically have the ability or opportunity to prevent publication. After they came to know of the defamatory postings, they acted with reasonable care since they promptly removed them.