8 Apr 2016
Claim struck out and proceedings dismissed because plaintiff sued a wrong defendant, the claim disclosed no reasonable cause of action on the facts pleaded, medical/psychiatric allegations lacked expert evidence required by Bolam, and the proceedings were frivolous, vexatious and an abuse of process; costs awarded to defendant (HK$35,000).
11 Jul 2013
The applicant failed to demonstrate an arguable public law case for judicial review; his complaints were primarily about medical diagnosis and treatment (private law), section 27 did not apply because no committee had been appointed, remedies lay in a private civil action (subject to s.69 leave) or before the Mental Health Review Tribunal (s.59B), and the application was time‑barred; therefore leave to apply for judicial review was refused.
5 Sept 2000
Psychiatric evidence established the applicant suffered chronic schizophrenia, had not recovered and lacked insight, posing a danger to the community; on that basis the hospital order for detention for an unspecified period was justified and must be upheld, with release to be determined by the Mental Health Review Tribunal under s.59E.
26 Jun 1995
Section 76(1) of the Criminal Procedure Ordinance is not inconsistent with the Hong Kong Bill of Rights when construed in the context of s.75, the Fourth Schedule and the Mental Health Ordinance; mandatory referral under s.76(1) engages MHO safeguards and review mechanisms, does not constitute arbitrary or inhuman detention, and the court cannot judicially read in a discretion by striking 'shall'; therefore the application for a permanent stay is refused.