Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments | LexChat

Hong Kong Case Law

Standards of care

  • 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.

  • 9 Dec 2014

    DR CHAN PO SUM v. THE MEDICAL COUNCIL OF HONG KONG

    Citation
    DR CHAN PO SUM v. THE MEDICAL COUNCIL OF HONG KONG
    Court
    Court of Appeal
    Case number
    CACV103/2013

    The Court of Appeal upheld the Medical Council: a practitioner must disclose defining and significant differences between treatment options and serious risks (even if low probability) necessary for informed consent; Dr Chan promoted PPH without balanced explanation, failed to examine a patient complaining of severe persistent abdominal pain, and failed to advise or follow up after discharge, conduct which fell below the standard expected of registered medical practitioners and amounted to professional misconduct; expert opinion supportive of a practice is weighty but not dispositive in discip…

  • 24 Oct 2002

    DR IP WING KIN v. THE MEDICAL COUNCIL OF HONG KONG

    Citation
    DR IP WING KIN v. THE MEDICAL COUNCIL OF HONG KONG
    Court
    Court of Appeal
    Case number
    CACV627/2001

    The Court held that the Medical Council was entitled to accept the patient's credible evidence and expert evidence that extensive genital warts would not have been missed by the other clinicians; on that factual basis the appellant's definitive diagnosis and immediate treatment recommendation constituted a falling short of the standards expected of doctors and therefore amounted to misconduct in a professional respect under s.21(1)(b); the appeal was dismissed and the Council's reprimand and publication order was upheld.