HO YEE-SUP AND ANOTHER v. DR MAY CHAN YUK-MAY AND OTHERS

HO YEE-SUP AND ANOTHER v. DR MAY CHAN YUK-MAY AND OTHERS

Applying the Bolam/Hunter standard and assessing local expert evidence, the court found that in Hong Kong in 1980 there was a responsible body of obstetricians who would not have routinely warned of the small risk of tubal ligation failure and, on the facts, the plaintiffs had been warned; therefore no duty was breached and the defendants were not liable.

Citation
HO YEE-SUP AND ANOTHER v. DR MAY CHAN YUK-MAY AND OTHERS
Parties
1st Plaintiff: HO Yee-sup; 2nd Plaintiff: CHAN Kwai-chun; 1st Defendant: Dr May Chan Yuk-may; 2nd Defendant: Dr Grace Tang Wai-king; 3rd Defendant: The Attorney General (representing the Director of Medical and Health Services)
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
4 June 1991
Case Number
HCA3490/1986
Procedural Posture
Medical Negligence (wrongful Birth) / Judgment (high Court)
Outcome
Action dismissed; defendants entitled to costs
Legal Topics
Wrongful Birth, Sterilisation Failure Risk, Duty to Warn, Bolam Test, Mitigation (refusal to Abort)
Source Language
EN
Medical Negligence Tort Negligence Medical Malpractice Informed Consent Wrongful Birth Sterilisation Failure Risk Duty to Warn Bolam Test +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 13 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

HO Yee-sup

1st Plaintiff

CHAN Kwai-chun

2nd Plaintiff

Dr May Chan Yuk-may

1st Defendant

Dr Grace Tang Wai-king

2nd Defendant

The Attorney General (representing the Director of Medical and Health Services)

3rd Defendant

Procedural Posture

Medical Negligence (wrongful Birth) / Judgment (high Court)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether in 1980 a duty existed to warn a patient undergoing postpartum tubal ligation of the small risk of recanalisation and consequent pregnancy
  2. 2 Whether the defendants breached the standard of care applicable in Hong Kong in 1980 (Bolam/Hunter v Hanley test)
  3. 3 Whether the plaintiffs mitigated loss by refusing abortion and whether that breaks causation

Ratio Decidendi

Applying the Bolam/Hunter standard and assessing local expert evidence, the court found that in Hong Kong in 1980 there was a responsible body of obstetricians who would not have routinely warned of the small risk of tubal ligation failure and, on the facts, the plaintiffs had been warned; therefore no duty was breached and the defendants were not liable.

Court Disposition

Action dismissed; defendants entitled to costs

Orders

  • Action dismissed
  • Order nisi for costs against the plaintiffs to be taxed on Legal Aid Regulations