← All Authorities
Hong Kong professional negligence

Infinger

[2024] HKCFA 29
JurisdictionHong Kong
CourtHK Court of Final Appeal
Year2024
StatusBinding authority

Summary

Evidence regarding public confidence in the medical profession, quality of services, and protection of vulnerable patients from undue influence was unnecessary in this CFA proceeding.

Key Principle

It was unnecessary for evidence to be adduced regarding confidence in the medical profession, maintaining quality of services, and protecting vulnerable patients from undue influence.

Area of Law

procedure

Related Cases

Getswift Ltd v Webb (2022) 276 CLR 553

High Court of Australia held there is no power to make a common fund order in favour of litigation funders at the interlocutory stage of a class action.

UBS AG v Tyne (2018) 265 CLR 77

Anshun estoppel bars relitigation where it was unreasonable not to raise the issue in earlier proceedings; re-litigation may also constitute abuse of process.

Palmer v Ayres (2017) 259 CLR 478

High Court of Australia held the reflective loss principle (Prudential Assurance rule) does not apply in Australia, permitting shareholders to recover losses independently of the company.

Ask CommonBench about this case

Get a detailed analysis of Infinger and how it applies to your situation.

Explain Infinger