Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Professional misconduct

Legal area

Court

12 Jan 2026

DR. CHU KIN WAH v. THE MEDICAL COUNCIL OF HONG KONG

Citation

[2026] HKCA 31
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV204/2024

The Court held the Inquiry Panel's factual findings on both charges were open on the evidence and not plainly wrong; the Panel was entitled to find the Appellant fell below expected professional standards by failing to investigate suspected intra-abdominal infection in November 2015 and by failing to treat the CT findings in July 2016 with appropriate urgency; the sanctions imposed were within the Panel's discretion and not manifestly excessive, so the appeal was dismissed.
8 Dec 2025

NORMAN GUY DONALD AND ANOTHER v. LI PAK HUEN in his capacity as executor of the estate of LI PAK WING AND OTHERS

Citation

[2025] HKCA 1064
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV137/2024

The Court was satisfied that the criteria in Order 62, rule 8B(1)(a) were met and therefore the Plaintiffs' application for a wasted costs order against the Legal Representatives should proceed to the second stage under Order 62, rule 8B(1)(b) in respect of specified applications and grounds; the Court directed the second stage to be dealt with on paper with leave for one final round of evidence and/or submissions by the Legal Representatives and reserved costs.
4 Jul 2025

DR LEUNG KA LAU v. THE MEDICAL COUNCIL OF HONG KONG

Citation

[2025] HKCA 616
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV63/2023

Leave to appeal was refused because the matters do not meet the Court of Final Appeal threshold and are not reasonably arguable beyond the facts of this case; the Code, read as a whole, prohibits commercial promotion of medical services that aims to solicit or canvass patients and the Court's factual findings that the appellant's advertisements breached that prohibition are sustained; constitutional arguments were either unarguable on these facts or not raised below.
29 May 2023

THE LAW SOCIETY OF HONG KONG v. A SOLICITOR

Citation

[2023] HKCA 694
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV63/2022

The Suspension Sentence was manifestly inadequate given persistent, repeated and systemic breaches over three years involving misappropriation and mishandling of client monies in excess of $23 million, multiple dishonoured client account cheques, failure to keep proper accounts and abdication of supervisory responsibilities; these facts demonstrate the respondent is unfit to practise and must be struck off.
28 Dec 2022

HKSAR v. KELVIN Y.C. LEUNG AND ANOTHER

Citation

[2022] HKCA 1905
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA309/2020

The appeal was allowed on the ground of apparent bias, but because the appellants' conduct amounted to serious waste of judicial time and was unacceptable, the court exercised its discretion to refuse variation of the order nisi and to deny costs of the appeal and the wasted costs application; the application to vary was refused and the order nisi made absolute, with the appellants ordered to pay the respondent's costs of the application.
22 Sept 2022

THE REGISTRAR OF THE HONG KONG INSTITUTE OF CERTIFIED PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS v. TANG CHUNG WAH

Citation

[2022] HKCA 1421
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV60/2020

The Court upheld the Disciplinary Committee: the respondent's deliberate refusal to comply with a court disclosure order breached COE sections 100.5(e) and 150.1, amounted to professional misconduct and dishonourable conduct, the committee's reasons and sanctions (reprimand, fines totalling HK$50,000) and the costs award (HK$283,730 jointly and severally) were within its powers and not plainly wrong; appeal dismissed and costs of the appeal ordered on an indemnity basis nisi to be taxed.
16 Jun 2022

DR IP DAVID v. THE MEDICAL COUNCIL OF HONG KONG

Citation

[2022] HKCA 877
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV279/2020

The application to adduce fresh evidence was dismissed because the PIC notices and pre-hearing correspondence could have been obtained with reasonable diligence for the disciplinary inquiry and, in any event, would not probably have had an important influence on the appeal: the appellant's counsel had accepted at the inquiry that the charge included the alternatives 'without proper care' and 'without investigation' and the Council sentenced on that proven basis. Leave to adduce the documents was therefore refused and costs were ordered.
4 Mar 2022

THE PRACTICE REVIEW COMMITTEE OF THE HONG KONG INSTITUTE OF CERTIFIED PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS v. LI SAU YING

Citation

[2022] HKCA 319
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV138/2020

The Court upheld the Disciplinary Committee: a small practice or small clients do not excuse failure to comply with mandatory auditing and accounting standards; Ms Li’s systemic deviations, inadequate documentation and quality control, and conflict of interest breached the PAO and associated standards; those findings supported the Committee’s sanction (cancellation/suspension of practising certificate and costs) which was within its discretion and not plainly wrong.
9 Dec 2021

HONG KONG INSTITUTE OF CERTIFIED PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS v. NG KWOK CHING

Citation

[2021] HKCA 1821
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV42/2019

The Court affirmed the Disciplinary Committee's findings because the audit working papers and Mr Ng's own confirmations and admissions established failures to obtain sufficient appropriate audit evidence (HKSA 500), failures in documentation of personnel and dates (HKSA 230) and lack of timely written management representations (HKSA 580); the procedural complaints lacked substance and did not undermine the evidential basis; and the sanctions imposed were within the reasonable range for the proven misconduct.
22 Jan 2021

LEUNG WAI KUEN v. PRELIMINARY INVESTIGATION COMMITTEE OF THE MEDICAL COUNCIL OF HONG KONG

Citation

[2021] HKCFI 132
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL2216/2020

Leave was refused because the applicant failed to comply with the mandatory requirement to state grounds in the leave form and, substantively, the PIC lawfully and rationally concluded on the materials that there was insufficient evidence of a reasonable prospect of professional misconduct by Dr Tang; the matters relied upon by the PIC (team treatment, psychiatric assessment and court order) were relevant and lawful to consider, and MHO s69 shields practitioners absent bad faith or lack of reasonable care.