Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments | LexChat

Hong Kong Case Law

Professional ethics

  • 8 May 2015

    DR TSE KIT MING v. THE DENTAL COUNCIL OF HONG KONG

    Citation
    DR TSE KIT MING v. THE DENTAL COUNCIL OF HONG KONG
    Court
    Court of Appeal
    Case number
    CACV86/2013

    The Court set aside convictions and sentence relating to the SCMP republication because the evidence did not prove the appellant had actual knowledge or was reasonably put on notice that his PULSE article would be republished in the SCMP; however the Court upheld the plagiarism conviction in relation to the PULSE article because publication of unacknowledged, unverifiable clinical photographs represented deliberate misrepresentation and dishonesty. The suspended removal order was otherwise within range but the CPD‑in‑ethics condition was quashed as impracticable and insufficiently clear for c…

  • 24 Jan 2008

    Dr. KWOK-HAY KWONG v. THE MEDICAL COUNCIL OF HONG KONG

    Citation
    Dr. KWOK-HAY KWONG v. THE MEDICAL COUNCIL OF HONG KONG
    Court
    Court of Appeal
    Case number
    CACV373/2006

    The Court held that the challenged provisions of the Code, as drafted, infringed the constitutional freedom of expression and that the infringements were not justified because they were disproportionate and went further than necessary; less intrusive, practicable measures were available. Accordingly the Medical Council's appeal was dismissed and the respondent was ordered to pay the applicant's costs (subject to taxation).

  • 2 Oct 1985

    MOK SHUM PIK YING v. MOK KAM BOR

    Citation
    MOK SHUM PIK YING v. MOK KAM BOR
    Court
    Court of First Instance
    Case number
    HCMC3514/1984

    The Court approved and recorded the agreed procedural framework: Petitioner's solicitor must refer suspected disabled respondents to the Crown Solicitor before service under Rule 105(3), provide relevant non‑privileged information, not seek privileged medical records, and, if necessary, apply under Rule 105(5) for directions so the Court may appoint a guardian ad litem (including the Crown Solicitor) even if the Crown Solicitor has not consented; on the facts, the Crown Solicitor was appointed by consent subject to filing his consent.