Kennedys logo

The Legal 500 Asia Pacific 2017 - Leading Firm

The Legal 500 Asia 2017

The Legal 500 Asia Pacific 2017 - Top Tier Firm

The Legal 500 Asia Pacific 2017 - Top tier firm

Chambers Asia Pacific 2017 - Leading Firm

Leading Firm - chambers 2017

Chambers Asia Pacific 2017 - Kennedys

Case reviews

Page 1 of 7(68 items found)
1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5   >   >>
16 June 2017
In this case, the Hong Kong Court of First Instance (CFI) has ruled that a PRC State-owned enterprise was not entitled to invoke Crown immunity against the execution of a charging order of assets in Hong Kong.
6 April 2017
The United Kingdom’s Court of Appeal overturns High Court’s decision where the judge had erred in his approach regarding the nature of a doctor’s duty to advise the patient. The application of the Bolam test when determining the level of information to give to a patient was no longer appropriate. Applying Montgomery v Lanarkshire Health Board [11.03.15] the treating obstetrician should have advised the patient of the option of early induction and the increased risks associated with prolonging the pregnancy.
6 April 2017
The United Kingdom’s Court of Appeal, upholding the High Court’s decision, rules that the Trial Judge had not erred in finding that a consultant neuroradiologist had been negligent. Further, the Judge had been entitled to find that the independence and objectivity of the Appellant’s expert witness had been undermined by a failure to disclose that they had previously worked together.
23 March 2017

When having an advantage might or might not mean trouble: Secretary for Justice v Chan Chi Wan Stephen & Ors FACV 11 & 18/2016 (14 March 2017)

2 December 2016
A claim failed on causation where a child who suffered at least 39 minutes of acute profound hypoxia immediately before his birth, resulting in brain damage, could only establish that there had been a three-minute sub-standard delay, which had no impact on his mental ability or capacity.
12 October 2016

In Dana Shipping and Trading SA v Sino Channel Asia Ltd (HCCT 47A/2015), the Hong Kong Court of First Instance (“Court”) held that it had discretion to enforce a foreign arbitral award even after it had been set aside by the foreign supervisory court of the arbitration proceedings. This discretion will generally be exercised in accordance with the principles applicable to the recognition of foreign judgments.

26 August 2016

Communicating on a without prejudice basis is a widely adopted practice in negotiating settlements in legal proceedings. Such communications are protected by without prejudice privilege and cannot be admissible as evidence in court, except where the communication “would act as a cloak for perjury or other unambiguous impropriety”. This is commonly referred to as the “unambiguous impropriety” exception and is only applied in the clearest cases of abuse of a privileged occasion.

26 April 2016
In its judgment in Super Speed Ltd (in liquidation) v Bank of Baroda (HCCW 273/2012) and Marshel Exports Limited (in liquidation) v Bank of Baroda (HCCW 274/2012), the Court of First Instance (“CFI”) declined to hold liquidators personally liable for costs arising out of the claims they brought on behalf of two insolvent companies (the “Companies”). The CFI did, however, order costs against the third party funding the liquidators’ claim.
24 March 2016
Implications

The District Court in Hong Kong held that whilst a duty of care was owed by the defendant to the plaintiff to perform the services of a beauty clinic with reasonable skill and care, there was no broader duty in the nature of that to be expected for medical, nursing or healthcare providers. Both parties had instructed medically qualified experts to support their respective cases but the court could not apply either of those experts’ opinions to the treatment of a non-medically qualified beauty clinic staff member.
24 March 2016
Implications

The Privy Council of the United Kingdom has affirmed that in order to succeed on causation in a medical negligence claim where there are cumulative causative factors, a claimant needs not prove the negligent act was, on the balance of probabilities, the cause of the injury, but must show that the negligence made a material contribution to the injury.
Page 1 of 7(68 items found)
1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5   >   >>
 

*People marked with * are not admitted to practice in the State of Florida or any jurisdiction in the United States.