Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Specialist register removal

Legal area

Court

13 Nov 2015

DR H v. EDUCATION AND ACCREDITATION COMMITTEE OF THE MEDICAL COUNCIL OF HONG KONG AND ANOTHER

Citation

DR H v. EDUCATION AND ACCREDITATION COMMITTEE OF THE MEDICAL COUNCIL OF HONG KONG AND ANOTHER
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL55/2014

The court refused to entertain the judicial review challenges because the EAC recommendation decisions, the EAC review decisions and the Council appeal decisions were preliminary with no substantive legal effect until a s.19B decision by the full Council; no exceptional circumstances justified early review and therefore the applications were dismissed as premature.
26 Nov 2012

“DR. Y” v. THE EDUCATION AND ACCREDITATION COMMITTEE OF THE MEDICAL COUNCIL OF HONG KONG AND ANOTHER

Citation

“DR. Y” v. THE EDUCATION AND ACCREDITATION COMMITTEE OF THE MEDICAL COUNCIL OF HONG KONG AND ANOTHER
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV206/2011

Held that (1) as a matter of statutory construction and facts removal from the GR necessarily leads to removal from the SR (ss.20J/20K/19B) so in Dr X's case the Council's s.20O appeal outcome was inevitable and not tainted by apparent bias; (2) the EAC does have jurisdiction under s.20N to consider competence and to recommend removal from the SR and s.25(2) stay does not prevent the EAC making recommendations (it only prevents the Registrar effecting removal pending appeal); (3) in Dr Y's case apparent bias was established because the outcome was not inevitable and untainted alternative pane…
26 Nov 2012

“DR. X” v. THE EDUCATION AND ACCREDITATION COMMITTEE OF THE MEDICAL COUNCIL OF HONG KONG AND ANOTHER

Citation

“DR. X” v. THE EDUCATION AND ACCREDITATION COMMITTEE OF THE MEDICAL COUNCIL OF HONG KONG AND ANOTHER
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV205/2011

The Court held that (a) in Dr X's case the Council's decisions were not vitiated by apparent bias because removal from the General Register made removal from the Specialist Register legally inevitable and the s.20O appeal was a review of the EAC decision on the materials before it at the time (no scope for prior involvement to influence a discretionary judgment that did not exist); (b) in Dr Y's case four Council members were tainted by apparent bias and necessity did not apply because it was factually possible to constitute an untainted quorum, so the Council's s.20O and related SR decisions…
7 Sept 2011

“DR. X” v. THE EDUCATION AND ACCREDITATION COMMITTEE OF THE MEDICAL COUNCIL OF HONG KONG AND ANOTHER

Citation

“DR. X” v. THE EDUCATION AND ACCREDITATION COMMITTEE OF THE MEDICAL COUNCIL OF HONG KONG AND ANOTHER
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL106/2010

The s.20O appeal decisions of the Council were vitiated by apparent bias because multiple panel members had participated in the PIC or the s.21 inquiry and thus there was a real possibility their prior views affected the appeal; accordingly those appeal decisions and the consequential SR removal orders were quashed and remitted for rehearing before a differently constituted Council. The EAC has jurisdiction under s.20N to consider suitability including competence and its recommendations were not in principle ultra vires or automatically barred by s.21 or s.25(2); issues of proportionality and…

Hong Kong Case Law

DR H v. EDUCATION AND ACCREDITATION COMMITTEE OF THE MEDICAL COUNCIL OF HONG KONG AND ANOTHER

“DR. Y” v. THE EDUCATION AND ACCREDITATION COMMITTEE OF THE MEDICAL COUNCIL OF HONG KONG AND ANOTHER

“DR. X” v. THE EDUCATION AND ACCREDITATION COMMITTEE OF THE MEDICAL COUNCIL OF HONG KONG AND ANOTHER

“DR. X” v. THE EDUCATION AND ACCREDITATION COMMITTEE OF THE MEDICAL COUNCIL OF HONG KONG AND ANOTHER