CHEUNG HAY SHING v. DR PANG KA HUNG PETER AND ANOTHER

CHEUNG HAY SHING v. DR PANG KA HUNG PETER AND ANOTHER

On balance of credibility and contemporaneous documentary and witness evidence the court found the defendant had explained the material risk of stroke and obtained informed consent before anaesthesia; expert evidence accepted that factual finding determinative of professional standard; plaintiff failed to prove lack of informed consent or causation and therefore liability was dismissed.

Citation
[2026] HKCFI 2386
Parties
Plaintiff: Cheung Hay Shing; 1st Defendant: Dr Pang Ka Hung Peter; 2nd Defendant (discontinued): Seventh-Day Adventist Corporation (HK) Limited
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
24 April 2026
Case Number
HCPI428/2019
Procedural Posture
Personal Injuries Action / Trial Judgment (court of First Instance)
Outcome
Claim dismissed
Legal Topics
Informed Consent, Causation, Expert Evidence, Quantum of Damages, Medical Records and Contemporaneous Documentation
Source Language
EN
Medical Negligence Tort Personal Injury Civil Procedure Informed Consent Causation Expert Evidence Quantum of Damages +1 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 11 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 8
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Cheung Hay Shing

Plaintiff

Dr Pang Ka Hung Peter

1st Defendant

Seventh-Day Adventist Corporation (HK) Limited

2nd Defendant (discontinued)

Procedural Posture

Personal Injuries Action / Trial Judgment (court of First Instance)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether informed consent was obtained for the transsphenoidal pituitary surgery
  2. 2 Whether the surgery was performed negligently (pleaded peri-operative negligence abandoned before trial)
  3. 3 Whether any failure to obtain informed consent caused the stroke

Ratio Decidendi

On balance of credibility and contemporaneous documentary and witness evidence the court found the defendant had explained the material risk of stroke and obtained informed consent before anaesthesia; expert evidence accepted that factual finding determinative of professional standard; plaintiff failed to prove lack of informed consent or causation and therefore liability was dismissed.

Court Disposition

Claim dismissed

Orders

  • Claim dismissed
  • Plaintiff to pay the 1st Defendant's costs of the action between them, including costs reserved, to be taxed if not agreed