Read the full judgment text of HCPI 549/2010 on BabelCite. This High Court CFI judgment was delivered on 11 April 2011.
1. The 1 st Defendant was/is a Chinese medicine practitioner pursuant to section 90 of the Chinese Medicine Ordinance Cap. 549. According to the Plaintiff, the 1 st Defendant was/is a bonesetter trading as 吳寶穗跌打醫館 (ie the 3 rd Defendant but erroneously named as “吳寶穗醫館 (a firm)” in the Writ of Summons, “ Clinic ”). There is no dispute that the 2 nd Defendant was/is a registered Chinese medicine practitioner.
Cited by 3 cases · Cites 3 cases