Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Consent to medical treatment

Legal area

Court

7 Jan 2020

C v. S

Citation

[2020] HKCA 35
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CAMP223/2019

Leave to appeal was refused because the father's proposed directions were unnecessary or potentially obstructive to the treating psychiatrist's ability to devise and implement a treatment plan for the ward; the judge had considered but properly rejected the directions as likely to cause delay and not to assist the ward, and costs were awarded accordingly, with an order preventing a further oral hearing under Order 59, r 2A(8).
9 Oct 2012

KWAN YUEN MEI v. LAU SUI YUEN

Citation

KWAN YUEN MEI v. LAU SUI YUEN
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCPI569/2009

The negligence claims were properly struck out because the plaintiff failed to adduce expert medical evidence complying with the formal requirements and addressing causation and breach under the Bolam test; the proffered reports were non‑compliant, inadequate or unavailable for oral testimony and there were no special grounds to admit late expert material on appeal. However, the Master erred in refusing to allow a battery claim to proceed against Dr Lau where it was arguable he procured or authorised the nurses to perform the urine tests, so leave was granted to pursue the battery claim again…
17 Apr 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 court held there was no reasonable cause of action against Dr Lau and struck out HCPI 569/2009; the revised statement of claim disclosed a prima facie cause of action for performing a catheterised urine test without proper consent against the nurse (2nd defendant) and the Hospital Authority, so HCPI 570/2009 may proceed against those parties subject to re-amendment and directions; claims against the 3rd and 4th defendants were struck out and leave given to withdraw the 1st defendant.
17 Apr 2012

KWAN YUEN MEI v. LAU SUI YUEN

Citation

KWAN YUEN MEI v. LAU SUI YUEN
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCPI569/2009

The Master held the revised statement of claim disclosed a prima facie cause of action for a catheterised urine test carried out without proper consent against the nurse (2nd defendant) and the Hospital Authority, but there was no reasonable cause of action pleaded against Dr Lau so HCPI 569/2009 was struck out; HCPI 570/2009 may proceed against the 2nd defendant and Hospital Authority with leave to amend and directions, while claims against the 3rd and 4th defendants are dismissed and leave granted to withdraw against the 1st defendant.
23 Nov 2009

WONG CHING HANG v. HOSPITAL AUTHORITY

Citation

WONG CHING HANG v. HOSPITAL AUTHORITY
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCPI587/2006

The court refused to strike out the plaintiff's expert comment on alternative treatment because the issue was relevant to the pleaded allegation that the tracheostomy was not in the patient's best interest and to the defendant's necessity defence; the comment constituted admissible evidential material rather than a new unpleaded cause of action, and any procedural prejudice could be cured by allowing the defendant leave to file evidence within a fixed period.
9 Oct 2009

RE TYL

Citation

RE TYL
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP1840/2006

A committee appointed under Part II of the Mental Health Ordinance does not have power to consent to medical or dental treatment but does have standing to apply to the court under Section 59ZG for consent to non-urgent treatment; urgent treatment is governed by Section 59ZF and appointment of a guardian remains an alternative where guardianship criteria are met.
31 Jan 2003

THE HOSPITAL AUTHORITY v. C

Citation

THE HOSPITAL AUTHORITY v. C
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP479/2003

Where a pregnant woman lacks capacity the court may, by exercise of its inherent jurisdiction, grant a declaration authorising a caesarean section if the procedure is in the woman's best interests as determined by a responsible body of medical opinion and taking account of her likely wishes; the husband's objections do not have legal force to prevent such treatment.
24 Sept 1986

DIRECTOR OF SOCIAL WELFARE v. TAM AND CHAN

Citation

DIRECTOR OF SOCIAL WELFARE v. TAM AND CHAN
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV129/1986

Given updated medical evidence showing the hydrocephalus was arrested, meningitis controlled, a high probability of surgical success, and that the child’s long‑term prospects were better with surgery, the court held that authorizing the operation was required by the child's best interests and allowed the appeal authorizing the operation despite parental objection.