Wall St Journal seeks halt to Hong Kong press union head’s termination suit over ‘abuse’ of court system

The Wall Street Journal is seeking to halt a private prosecution brought by former employee Selina Cheng, who accuses the paper of firing her after she became chair of the Hong Kong Journalists Association (HKJA).

Selina Cheng at the Eastern Magistrates’ Courts on December 18, 2025. Photo: James Lee/HKFP.

Barrister Benson Tsoi, representing the newspaper’s publishing company, Dow Jones Publishing Co. (Asia) Inc., told Principal Magistrate David Cheung on Thursday that Cheng’s remarks in emails showed that she was “after the money,” which amounted to an “abuse” of the court system.

Appearing before Cheung at the Eastern Magistrates’ Courts, Tsoi said that Dow Jones was seeking to admit to the court a series of emails between the company and Cheng to show that she had been “untruthful.”

But Cheng’s lawyer Nigel Kat said that the emails could not be used to prove abuse of the prosecution system unless they clearly demonstrated an “unambiguous and improper motive.”

The four-day trial for Cheng’s private prosecution against her former employer’s parent company began on Thursday, about a year after she first launched proceedings in December 2024.

The head of the embattled HKJA is accusing Dow Jones of firing her over her leadership of the press union.

Dow Jones pleaded not guilty last month to one count of preventing or deterring an employee from exercising the right to hold office in a trade union, and another count of terminating employment, penalising, or discriminating against an employee for exercising that right.

Wall Street Journal Corporate Headquarters in New York. File photo: John Wisniewski, via Flickr CC2.0.

Shortly after Cheng was fired from the Journal in July last year, she said at a press conference that she had been told her position by the newspaper at the press union would be “incompatible” with her job and that she did not have permission to take on the role.

‘Extortionate’ amount

Tsoi cited an email dated September 23, 2024, in which the law firm representing Cheng asked Dow Jones, on her behalf, for a HK$3 million settlement and a reference letter.

In the following month, Dow Jones counter-proposed a HK$330,000 settlement, which Cheng’s lawyers rejected.

Dow Jones, in a later email, said the amount demanded was an “extortionate” amount, equivalent to four years of her salary, and asked Cheng to “engage in good faith.”

Tsoi added that on November 12 that year, Cheng filed a civil claim against Dow Jones and, on the same day, held a press conference, during which she said: “Don’t let some employers think that they can solve the problem by paying money.”

The next day, she filed a criminal complaint urging the Labour Department to prosecute the publishing firm, and again emailed the department on November 25 to take legal action.

Eventually, on December 11, 2024, Cheng’s lawyers told Dow Jones’ legal representatives that it was in the company’s “best interest to mediate tonight or pay the initial settlement,” Tsoi said.

But Cheng also told the Labour Tribunal that she did not intend to settle the matter outside of court, he added.

Selina Cheng (centre) at the Eastern Magistrates’ Courts on December 18, 2025. Photo: James Lee/HKFP.

The emails, Tsoi said, show that “Selina Cheng has been untruthful in the press conference, that she was untruthful when she reported the matter to [the Labour Department], and that she was less than truthful with the court.”

If the emails could be admitted as evidence, they would demonstrate an “abuse” of the prosecution procedure, he added.

“The company is being pushed, and she was not purely looking for employment tribunal compensation,” Tsoi said. “That’s why the email is relevant to show bad faith.”

‘Unambiguous and improper motive’

Kat, Cheng’s barrister, said that the emails could not be used to prove abuse of the prosecution system unless they clearly demonstrated an “unambiguous and improper motive” that outweighed the public interest of employee protection and rights attached to the prosecution against Dow Jones.

He said that the emails could only be admitted as evidence if a witness could testify and corroborate the publishing company’s account.

The barrister further said that the emails were protected by “without prejudice” privilege, a legal provision that renders negotiation communications such as emails inadmissible as evidence in court.