Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Informed consent

Legal area

Court

24 Apr 2026

CHEUNG HAY SHING v. DR PANG KA HUNG PETER AND ANOTHER

Citation

[2026] HKCFI 2386
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCPI428/2019

On balance of credibility and contemporaneous documentary and witness evidence the court found the defendant had explained the material risk of stroke and obtained informed consent before anaesthesia; expert evidence accepted that factual finding determinative of professional standard; plaintiff failed to prove lack of informed consent or causation and therefore liability was dismissed.
15 Aug 2025

CHU KWOK YIU, WILSON v. THE PRELIMINARY INVESTIGATION COMMITTEE OF THE MEDICAL COUNCIL OF HONG KONG

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 3535
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL714/2022

The court dismissed the judicial review: the PIC's Decision to dismiss the complaint and not refer to inquiry was not Wednesbury unreasonable because the PIC rationally preferred the independent expert opinion (Dr Foo) over the Applicant's expert, found Sunitinib an acceptable off-label/second-line salvage option in context, and found consent (express in August 2012 and implied earlier) sufficient; there was no legal requirement at the material times to obtain express consent for off-label use and the PIC properly applied its statutory screening function.
14 Jul 2025

WONG KING FUN PAUL 對 HOSPITAL AUTHORITY

Citation

[2025] HKDC 1124
Court

District Court
Case number

DCPI182/2018

On the evidence the court preferred the defendant's expert and operative witnesses: the genioplasty was clinically appropriate, informed consent was adequate and recorded, the surgical technique met accepted standards, postoperative mandibular fracture and nerve/muscle sequelae were rare but known risks and plaintiff failed to prove negligence or causation; accordingly the plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
18 Mar 2025

CHAN CI KA CINDY v. EDWARD C.T. WONG & CO. (a firm)

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 1100
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA2442/2024

The court granted the interlocutory injunction because there was a good arguable case of conflict of interest and a real risk of misuse of confidential information in the absence of any evidence of an effective information barrier or informed consent by the client; on balance of convenience and in exercise of the court's supervisory jurisdiction such restraint was necessary to protect the administration of justice and to permit mediation to proceed.
2 Dec 2024

CHAN YUET CHUN v. HOSPITAL AUTHORITY

Citation

[2024] HKDC 1991
Court

District Court
Case number

DCPI1749/2020

Applying O38 r2A and CJR principles the court held that most disputed paragraphs contained inadmissible or irrelevant material (over-elaboration, recitation of medical records, opinion/speculation and matters outside the plaintiff's knowledge) and were disproportionate to the modest claim; the court expunged the vast majority of disputed material (75 paras wholly or partially and 3 exhibits) and allowed only four short paras and two photographic exhibits to remain; defendant substantially succeeded on the summons and was awarded costs; the court directed show-cause and wasted costs procedures…
14 Sept 2023

SEAN LEONARD v. HONG KONG HOSPITAL AUTHORITY AND OTHERS

Citation

[2023] HKDC 1249
Court

District Court
Case number

DCPI1180/2021

The appeal is dismissed because the Master did not err in law nor make an unreasonable costs order: Order 21 r.5 properly governs costs on discontinuance; the delay in handing down the costs decision did not constitute legal error; allegations of misconduct by defendants' solicitors were unsupported; experts' opinions conflicted on informed consent and causation so no exceptional circumstances existed to displace the usual rule that costs follow the event; accordingly the costs order for the plaintiff to pay the defendants stands.
2 Mar 2023

YOUSAF AKBAR v. THE REGISTRAR OF THE HIGH COURT

Citation

[2023] HKCFI 575
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL18/2023

The Master erred in law by placing undue weight on a hospital letter that lacked identified evidential foundation and by effectively making or approaching a factual determination on informed consent at a preliminary legal aid stage; that assessment rendered his conclusion that there was no reasonable chance of success irrational/perverse and justified quashing and remitting the matter for reconsideration.
9 Mar 2022

HKSAR v. MAK WAN LING

Citation

[2022] HKCA 387
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC5/2018

The Court held that the summing-up, read as a whole, fairly directed the jury on all essential elements including the fifth ingredient; a Kevin Brown direction was unnecessary because the judge's directions prevented the risk of inconsistent juror findings; the amendments to the indictment were permissible and reflected evidence from the earlier trial; expert evidence supporting a duty to ensure laboratory quality and sterility testing was adduced and the existence of such a duty was properly a matter for the jury; accordingly leave was refused where required and the appeal dismissed.
17 Sept 2020

HKSAR v. MAK WAN LING

Citation

[2020] HKCFI 2424
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCCC437/2015

Amendment of the indictment was permitted because the proposed particulars accorded with evidence already adduced at the first trial and did not change the prosecution's underlying case or require additional evidence; the amendments were necessary to reflect the case the defendant must meet and would not cause injustice or unfair prejudice under s23 CPO.
11 Sept 2020

CHUNG KWEI MUI by her next friend WONG YUK CHUNG v. HOSPITAL AUTHORITY

Citation

[2020] HKCFI 2397
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCPI1406/2016

Leave to amend the Statement of Claim was granted in part because the proposed causation amendment was not shown to be bound to fail, was relevant to disposing fairly of the matter, and would not prejudice the defendant given available time; parts of Professor Chiu's 2nd supplemental report (¶¶1–4) and the supplemental witness statements were admitted as relevant and probative while other parts (¶¶5–7) were excluded as falling within the remit of other specialists; consequential leave was granted to the defendant to respond within 56 days and costs were ordered against the plaintiff as specif…