Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Bolam test

Legal area

Court

3 Nov 2025

WONG KING FUN PAUL 對 HOSPITAL AUTHORITY

Citation

[2025] HKDC 1649
Court

District Court
Case number

DCPI182/2018

The judge found the plaintiff advanced no arguable legal or factual grounds meeting the statutory threshold for leave to appeal: the claim was correctly characterised as civil medical negligence, there was no error in evidence evaluation or application of legal principles (including Bolam), the plaintiff's serious criminal allegations were speculative, and no public interest justification existed; accordingly both the leave to appeal and the costs‑variation applications were dismissed and costs awarded to the defendant assessed at HKD50,000 on a standard basis.
31 May 2023

WILMES, FRANZ JOSEF v. QUEEN MARY HOSPITAL

Citation

[2023] HKDC 644
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ1638/2021

Leave to appeal refused because the plaintiff failed to demonstrate a reasonable prospect of success or other interest of justice: the pleaded case is properly one of personal injury/medical negligence warranting transfer to the PI List, the plaintiff produced no cogent legal grounds or requisite expert evidence, and the high threshold for upsetting case management orders was not met; related applications (amendments, directions, stay) were dismissed and costs awarded to the defendant.
24 Jun 2022

WILMES, FRANZ JOSEF v. QUEEN MARY HOSPITAL

Citation

[2022] HKDC 633
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ1638/2021

On the pleadings the claim is for alleged medical negligence (including causation of death of the deceased) and therefore it is reasonable and in the interests of justice to transfer the action to the Personal Injuries List; the defendant's proposed amendment of name to Hospital Authority was agreed and the plaintiff must pay the defendant's costs of the application.
2 Apr 2020

BHATTI BHUPINDER SINGH v. HOSPITAL AUTHORITY

Citation

[2020] HKCFI 530
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP334/2019

The application for leave was dismissed because the applicant failed to establish a reasonably arguable case that the Hospital Authority acted in bad faith or without reasonable care: the nurse and doctors made contemporaneous professional judgments based on conflicting information and observed clinical signs, post‑discharge corroboration did not vitiate those judgments, and the applicant's expert evidence was procedurally defective, irrelevant to the material times and insufficient to meet the Bolam standard.
22 Jan 2020

JACQUELINE FRANCIS v. CHAN YI SAN

Citation

[2020] HKCFI 238
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP1235/2019

The plaintiff failed to demonstrate any reasonably arguable ground that the defendant acted in bad faith or without reasonable care in carrying out professional duties covered by s69(1) MHO; accordingly leave under s69(2) is refused and the application dismissed, with costs to the defendant assessed at HK$135,000.
30 Apr 2019

DR. FUNG YEE LEUNG WILSON v THE MEDICAL COUNCIL OF HONG KONG

Citation

[2019] HKCFA 15
Court

Court of Final Appeal
Case number

FAMV79/2018

Leave to appeal was refused because the matters advanced were essentially factual, the Medical Council had given adequate reasons and explicitly rejected the applicant's diagnosis supported by contemporaneous documents, the applicant merely sought re-examination of factual findings rather than raising reasonably arguable questions of law, and Bolam was not engaged or contested such as to raise a tractable legal question for this Court.
19 Sept 2018

伍學紅對儲碩文及另一人

Citation

[2018] HKDC 1137
Court

District Court
Case number

DCPI970/2016

Extension of time to appeal was refused because the delay was lengthy (about 11 months), the plaintiff’s excuses were not reasonable, and he had no real prospect of success in a medical negligence appeal without the required expert medical report; accordingly the Master’s costs order arising from the breach of the unless order was upheld and the plaintiff was ordered to pay the defendants’ costs (provisionally assessed).
29 Apr 2015

彭少娟（彭祖添的遺產管理人）對醫院管理局/威爾斯親王醫院

Citation

彭少娟（彭祖添的遺產管理人）對醫院管理局/威爾斯親王醫院
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCPI566/2014

Claim dismissed and action struck out because the claimant delayed approximately 12 years and failed to produce expert evidence that satisfies the Bolam standard and the causation test, leaving no basis for the court to exercise its discretionary power under s30 to extend time.
19 Jul 2013

張榮城，又名胡容對屯門仁愛眼科中心醫院及另一人

Citation

張榮城，又名胡容對屯門仁愛眼科中心醫院及另一人
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCPI48/2011

Even if all pleaded facts are accepted, the claimant failed to plead the essential elements of medical negligence (no adequate particulars of breach of duty or how defendants departed from the applicable standard) and the expert reports fail to meet the required standards (Bolam and Practice Direction/Orders), after multiple opportunities to remedy; therefore the claim disclosed no reasonable cause of action and was properly struck out and dismissed.
9 Oct 2012

KWAN YUEN MEI v. LEE, SEE CHING AND OTHERS

Citation

KWAN YUEN MEI v. LEE, SEE CHING AND OTHERS
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCPI570/2009

The appellant's medical negligence claims were rightly struck out because the expert reports failed to satisfy the procedural formalities and did not establish, even at their highest, the causation and breach required by the Bolam test; however, it was arguable that Dr Lau authorised the non-consensual urine tests so the Master erred in dismissing the battery claim against him and that part of the appeal should be allowed with leave to re-amend and re-file.