Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Transfer to personal injuries list

Legal area

Court

15 Mar 2024

WILMES, FRANZ JOSEF v. QUEEN MARY HOSPITAL

Citation

[2024] HKCA 243
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CAMP230/2023

The Court dismissed the renewed application for leave to appeal because the Judge's transfer of the action to the Personal Injuries List was a proper exercise of case management discretion: the pleadings established the claim was principally medical negligence/personal injury within PD18.1, the plaintiff failed to show a reasonable prospect of success or that the judge erred in principle, and the one‑day delay was a minor clerical error excused but immaterial given lack of merit in the intended appeal.
31 May 2023

WILMES, FRANZ JOSEF v. QUEEN MARY HOSPITAL

Citation

[2023] HKDC 644
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ1638/2021

Leave to appeal refused because the plaintiff failed to demonstrate a reasonable prospect of success or other interest of justice: the pleaded case is properly one of personal injury/medical negligence warranting transfer to the PI List, the plaintiff produced no cogent legal grounds or requisite expert evidence, and the high threshold for upsetting case management orders was not met; related applications (amendments, directions, stay) were dismissed and costs awarded to the defendant.
24 Jun 2022

WILMES, FRANZ JOSEF v. QUEEN MARY HOSPITAL

Citation

[2022] HKDC 633
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ1638/2021

On the pleadings the claim is for alleged medical negligence (including causation of death of the deceased) and therefore it is reasonable and in the interests of justice to transfer the action to the Personal Injuries List; the defendant's proposed amendment of name to Hospital Authority was agreed and the plaintiff must pay the defendant's costs of the application.
12 Jan 2018

陳少娟訴衛生署屯門婦女健康中心及另二人

Citation

[2018] HKDC 85
Court

District Court
Case number

DCMP2094/2017

The court exercised discretion to allow the out-of-time appeal and to admit the fresh affidavits because the delay was short and credibly explained, the fresh evidence was material and prima facie credible, and the registrar's strike-out would risk extinguishing the claimant's substantive rights if the limitation period could plausibly expire during the 14-day gap; accordingly the strike-out was set aside and the matter remitted to continue as a writ on the personal injuries list.
11 Sept 2015

唐光明對愉景樓業主立案法團

Citation

唐光明對愉景樓業主立案法團
Court

District Court
Case number

DCPI400/2014

Section 27 of the Limitation Ordinance applies to a defamation action where the damages claimed consist of or include personal injuries; the plaintiff had the requisite knowledge by on or before 17 November 2009 so the claim was outside the 3-year secondary limitation, and although absent exercise of s30 the whole action would be statute barred by virtue of including a PI head, the court in the exercise of its s30 discretion disapplied the time limitation and dismissed the defendant's strike out application allowing the action to proceed.

Hong Kong Case Law

WILMES, FRANZ JOSEF v. QUEEN MARY HOSPITAL

WILMES, FRANZ JOSEF v. QUEEN MARY HOSPITAL

WILMES, FRANZ JOSEF v. QUEEN MARY HOSPITAL

陳少娟 訴 衛生署屯門婦女健康中心及另二人

唐光明 對 愉景樓業主立案法團

陳少娟訴衛生署屯門婦女健康中心及另二人

唐光明對愉景樓業主立案法團