← All Authorities
Singapore Leading Case professional negligencebreach standard of care

Khoo James v Gunapathy d/o Muniandy

[2002] 1 SLR(R) 1024
JurisdictionSingapore
CourtSingapore Court of Appeal
Year2002
StatusBinding authority

Summary

In Singapore medical negligence cases, expert opinion satisfying the Bolam test must also withstand logical analysis per Bolitho, as refined by the 'Gunapathy gloss'.

Key Principle

medical negligence; Bolam-Bolitho test; Gunapathy gloss; expert evidence must withstand logical analysis

Area of Law

tort

Related Cases

Bird v DP (A Pseudonym) (2024) 98 ALJR 486

High Court of Australia held a religious organisation vicariously liable for sexual abuse by a priest, recognising a relationship akin to employment sufficient to ground vicarious liability.

Bryant v Badenoch Integrated Logging Pty Ltd (2023) 278 CLR 99

High Court of Australia held that the peak indebtedness rule does not apply when assessing unfair preferences under s 588FA of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth).

Kozarov v Victoria (2022) 275 CLR 115

An employer owes a duty to take reasonable steps to protect an employee from psychiatric injury caused by vicarious trauma, and may breach that duty by failing to act on obvious warning signs.

Ask CommonBench about this case

Get a detailed analysis of Khoo James v Gunapathy d/o Muniandy and how it applies to your situation.

Explain Khoo James v Gunapathy d/o Mun...