Court Upholds CNY 1000 Damages in Personality Rights Dispute
Mr. He and Ms. Xiao were shareholders in a company. After a boardroom conflict, Mr. He forcibly removed Ms. Xiao from the office and later forged her signature to change the company’s leadership registration. Ms. Xiao sued for personality rights violations. The trial court ordered Mr. He to publish an apology and pay CNY 1000 in mental damages. Mr. He appealed, arguing the matter was a corporate dispute that required joining another shareholder and that the apology order exceeded the original claim. The appeal court rejected both arguments and upheld the lower court’s decision.
Ms. Xiao and Mr. He, together with a third shareholder Mr. Lin, founded Oya Company in 2002. Ms. Xiao served as the chairperson. On 21 June 2010, Mr. He entered the company office with four other individuals and forcibly removed Ms. Xiao from the premises. She reported the incident to the local police, who classified it as an economic dispute. Four days later, Mr. He signed Ms. Xiao’s name on documents to register a change of the company’s chairperson without her knowledge or consent. Ms. Xiao then brought a civil action, seeking a public apology, restoration of reputation, elimination of negative effects, and compensation for mental distress.
The trial court heard evidence including the police report and the forged registration documents. Ms. Xiao’s legal team presented proof of the forced removal and the unauthorized signature. Mr. He admitted the physical removal and the signature change but claimed he was acting on behalf of the company and with the implied authority of the other shareholder. He argued that Mr. Lin should have been joined as a necessary party. The trial court disagreed, finding that Mr. He’s actions were personal and not authorized by any corporate resolution. The court then ordered an apology in a Southern China City public newspaper and awarded CNY 1000 in mental damages.
On appeal, the higher court reviewed the same evidence and affirmed the trial court’s findings. It held that even if a shareholder believes another has harmed the company, lawful channels must be used. Mr. He’s forcible removal of Ms. Xiao constituted an infringement of her bodily rights, and the forged signature violated her name rights. The court found no evidence that Mr. He’s actions were authorized by the company or its other shareholder. The requirement to publish an apology in a local newspaper was a standard method of restorative justice, not an expansion of the original claim.
Under relevant Chinese civil law, every individual enjoys personality rights, including the rights to health, bodily integrity, and name. The court applied Articles 98 and 99 of the General Principles of Civil Law, together with the Supreme People’s Court interpretation on mental damages. It reasoned that shareholder disputes do not justify self-help measures such as physical removal or forgery. The court also noted that the trial court’s order for a public apology fell within the scope of the relief requested by Ms. Xiao. The mental damages award was proportionate to the circumstances.
This case confirms that personality rights are enforceable even in business disputes. Shareholders must resolve internal conflicts through legal procedures, not through coercive or fraudulent actions. The decision also illustrates that courts will not allow a defendant to shift personal liability to a company or other shareholders without proof of authorization. The apology and modest damages send a clear message that physical and name rights are protected. Companies and their officers should ensure all actions are properly authorized and pursued through lawful means.
Disclaimer: This article is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice.