Yan Kwok, Jimmy v. Hospital Authority

DCPI1652/2009

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

PERSONAL INJURIES ACTION NO. 1652 OF 2009

________________________

BETWEEN

________________________

Before: Deputy District Judge Thomas Lee in Chambers (Open to the public)

Date of Hearing: 29 June 2011

Date of Decision: 29 June 2011

________________________

D E C I S I O N

________________________

1.On 14 June 2011 in this matter, I heard the defendant Hospital Authority’s application that this matter should be struck out because, on the basis of the only relevantly qualified report, that of of Dr Peter Thomas, it was concluded that the management of the plaintiff’s case, at the A & E Department of the Princess Margaret Hospital, was acceptable.

2.In my decision of 17 June 2011, I decided that the plaintiff’s claim was could not possibly succeed and I therefore struck it out.  The plaintiff now seeks leave to appeal to the Court of Appeal.  The plaintiff, furthermore, seeks an extension of time in which to seek both free legal representation as well as another expert medical opinion.  The plaintiff tells me that he has not yet begun to look for another relevantly qualified doctor but will need another three or four months after today. 

3.I am sympathetic to Mr Yan’s position but even if, which is not at all certain, Mr Yan is able to find another relevantly qualified doctor, who is willing to say that the treatment he received was below standard, the law would not allow me, or any court, to prefer such an opinion to the view already expressed by Dr Peter Thomas.  So long as one reasonable school of thought supports the position of the Hospital Authority, that is enough to answer the claim and that is the end of the case.  That is what has happened here. 

4.So in all the circumstances, I am bound to say that I see no reasonable prospects of success in any intended appeal.  Furthermore, this case has been on foot for several years involving substantial public money.  The Director of Legal Aid has withdrawn his support for the matter. 

5.I see no other reason, in the interests of justice, why leave should be granted and therefore I dismiss both the applications, for extension of time and also for leave to appeal.

(Discussion re costs)

6.I am not going to make any order regarding costs for today.  

Plaintiff appearing in person, present

Mr Harold Leong of Messrs Mayer Brown JSM, for the Defendant