MAK KA CHUN v. HONG KONG BAPTIST HOSPITAL

MAK KA CHUN v. HONG KONG BAPTIST HOSPITAL

The Amended Statement of Claim is not a plain and obvious non‑cause of action and should not be struck out at this stage because the Plaintiff has pleaded sufficient circumstantial facts to make causation arguable; however, the particulars in paragraph 24 are too vague and must be amended to state the specific...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
MAK KA CHUN v. HONG KONG BAPTIST HOSPITAL
Parties
Plaintiff: MAK KA CHUN; 1st Defendant: HONG KONG BAPTIST HOSPITAL; 2nd Defendant: 2nd Defendant (unnamed doctor)
Court
District Court
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
15 September 2006
Case Number
DCPI1810/2005
Procedural Posture
Personal Injuries Action (sars Infection) / Application to Strike Out Amended Statement of Claim; Decision in Chambers Refusing Strike Out and Granting Leave to Amend
Outcome
Application to strike out refused; leave granted to plaintiff to amend the Amended Statement of Claim
Legal Topics
Causation, Pleadings, Strike Out, Res Ipsa Loquitur, Occupier's Liability, SARS
Source Language
en
Tort Medical Negligence Personal Injuries Public Health Causation Pleadings Strike Out Res Ipsa Loquitur +2 more

Source-derived case record

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 3 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

MAK KA CHUN

Plaintiff

HONG KONG BAPTIST HOSPITAL

1st Defendant

2nd Defendant (unnamed doctor)

2nd Defendant

Procedural Posture

Personal Injuries Action (sars Infection) / Application to Strike Out Amended Statement of Claim; Decision in Chambers Refusing Strike Out and Granting Leave to Amend

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Amended Statement of Claim discloses a reasonable cause of action
  2. 2 Whether particulars of negligence are so vague as to prejudice or embarrass the defendant
  3. 3 Whether causation can be established sufficiently at pleading stage by circumstantial evidence

Ratio Decidendi

The Amended Statement of Claim is not a plain and obvious non‑cause of action and should not be struck out at this stage because the Plaintiff has pleaded sufficient circumstantial facts to make causation arguable; however, the particulars in paragraph 24 are too vague and must be amended to state the specific allegations and routes of transmission so the defendant knows the case to meet.

Court Disposition

Application to strike out refused; leave granted to plaintiff to amend the Amended Statement of Claim

Orders

  • Refusal of 1st Defendant's application to strike out the Amended Statement of Claim
  • Leave granted to the Plaintiff to amend the Amended Statement of Claim to provide clear particulars of negligence and specify routes of transmission