26 Mar 2026
Leave to appeal was granted because the questions raise issues of requisite importance concerning whether the Medical Council’s interpretation of §5.2.1.2(d) and its sanction constitute unlawful and disproportionate restrictions on freedom of expression and the public’s right to receive information, thereby warranting appellate determination.
6 Mar 2026
The Court of Appeal allowed the Secretary's appeal: the Secretary lawfully exercised discretion under section 10 PS(A)O, gave adequate contemporaneous reasons, properly weighed public interest and mitigation, and dismissal (with forfeiture of retirement benefits) fell within the range of reasonable sanctions; the judge below erred by substituting his own assessment for that of the disciplinary authority and by finding the Decision irrational or inadequately reasoned.
27 Aug 2024
Court found Nomura had reasonable and proper cause to issue the written warning based on SFC findings and internal investigation; the withholding of the FY2016/17 discretionary bonus was a lawful exercise of contractual discretion subject to Braganza rationality review and was not irrational; termination (labelled redundancy) was not proven to have been used to avoid bonus entitlement and unvested awards were forfeited as a consequence of the employee's failure to execute required waiver under the award terms. Accordingly all contractual breach claims failed.
1 Mar 2023
Removal of the appellant's name from the Register for an indefinite period was manifestly excessive and disproportionate in all the circumstances; the Court of Appeal will set aside such an order where it falls outside the reasonable range of options and remit to the Nursing Council to determine an appropriate specified period of removal, having regard to the Council's expertise and the materials before it.
8 May 2015
The Court set aside convictions and sentence relating to the SCMP republication because the evidence did not prove the appellant had actual knowledge or was reasonably put on notice that his PULSE article would be republished in the SCMP; however the Court upheld the plagiarism conviction in relation to the PULSE article because publication of unacknowledged, unverifiable clinical photographs represented deliberate misrepresentation and dishonesty. The suspended removal order was otherwise within range but the CPD‑in‑ethics condition was quashed as impracticable and insufficiently clear for c…
5 May 2015
The Court found grounds 2 and 3 (improper reliance on precedents and irrationality/disproportionality of dismissal without retirement benefits) to be reasonably arguable and therefore granted leave to apply for judicial review on those grounds; ground 1 (failure to seek proper representations) was not reasonably arguable in light of clear correspondence showing the applicant was given opportunity to make final representations.
25 Jul 2014
Leave to appeal refused: recommendations under s21 Cap 161 are not appealable because they are not orders; the Court independently re‑sentenced and reaching the same penalty on a reassessed, lesser culpability does not establish an error warranting leave under the 'otherwise' limb.
6 Nov 2012
The Commissioner's findings that the applicant's testimony reflected poorly on his professionalism because he did not refer to FPM 21-38 were unsupported by the evidence, rested on irrelevant inferences and were irrational; accordingly both disciplinary decisions were quashed and mandatory relief ordered to remove the written warning and award costs.
26 Jan 2012
The Medical Council's penalty of 12 months removal (suspended for two years) was manifestly excessive because it failed to adequately consider mitigation (operational practice of head office and branches, small quantities and presence of expired drugs) and was disproportionate when compared to other disciplinary decisions; the appeal was allowed and the penalty substituted with six months removal suspended for one year subject to specified supervisory audit conditions; the application to adduce new evidence was refused for failure to produce it at the inquiry.
10 Jan 2012
The Medical Council was entitled to consider the Court of Final Appeal's findings and other available evidence when exercising its discretionary power under s.21(1) and s.21(3); it had formed an independent view of culpability and proper application of the totality principle and the 12 month removal order was within its discretion and not grossly excessive, therefore the appeal is dismissed.