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

Insights

View our latest publications, articles, case reviews and events.

Publications

6 April 2017
Welcome to the latest edition of our Hong Kong Medical Law Brief.
2 December 2016
Welcome to the latest edition of the Hong Kong Medical Law Brief.
23 November 2016
Welcome to the latest edition of Healthcare Brief.

Articles

21 July 2017
Following our update in the April 2017 edition of our Medical Law Brief – the Legislative Council of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region passed the long-awaited Apology Legislation Bill on 13 July 2017 - with 46-2 votes in favour.
29 June 2017
Welcome to the latest edition of Hong Kong Personal Injury Brief.
27 June 2017
Yesterday the Insurance Authority (IA) replaced the Office of the Commissioner of Insurance. The Insurance Authority also launched its website and this is available at www.ia.org.hk.

Case reviews

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.
 

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