Hong Kong Court decisions on frivolous or vexatious medical claim

梁偉珍 對 香港瑪嘉烈醫院 [2024] HKCFI 151, [2024] HKCA 801, [2024] HKCA 952 and [2024] HKCA 953 (HCMP 388/2023)

Recently, the High Court of Hong Kong made several rulings in favour of the defendant hospital, dismissing a frivolous and vexatious claim brought by the patient’s family member.

Background

The deceased patient who had pre-existing heart conditions was admitted to Princess Margaret Hospital (PMH) for fever and shortness of breath. His conditions progressively deteriorated and he suffered a cardiac arrest. His children agreed for PMH not to attempt cardiopulmonary resuscitation and he passed away after staying at PMH for 16 days.

The plaintiff, who cohabited with the deceased patient for 30 years, commenced legal action against the defendant. The plaintiff claimed she was allowed only limited visiting time and received no explanations regarding the deceased patient’s condition or medication. Other allegations included that the hospital staff lowered the ward’s temperature, did not allow the deceased patient to be covered with a blanket and lowered the oxygen content in his respiratory mask.

It was the plaintiff’s case that she was not claiming for compensation but was seeking a declaration from the Court regarding what the plaintiff alleged were breaches by PMH of Article 37 of Chapter II and Article 28 of Chapter III of the Basic Law of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region, violating freedom of the person. The defendant applied to strike out the plaintiff’s case.

Striking out at the Court of First Instance

The judge at the Court of First Instance held that the plaintiff, as the deceased patient’s partner, had no legal standing to commence the action as she was not the administratrix of the estate of the deceased patient. Notwithstanding that the plaintiff had requested a Court declaration only in relation to, her allegations, which were contrary to the hospital records and the allegations were found to be scandalous, frivolous or vexatious, or were otherwise an abuse of the process of court. Furthermore, the plaintiff’s allegations against the medical staff were obviously exaggerated and incorrect. Given the deceased patient’s poor medical condition, which remained critical even after resuscitation, the doctor’s discussion of the plan not to attempt cardiopulmonary resuscitation with the family was appropriate. The plaintiff’s case was struck out.

Plaintiff’s appeal dismissed

The plaintiff sought to appeal against the lower Court decision, alleging that the judge ignored the plaintiff’s evidence and was biased. The plaintiff reiterated her accusations against the hospital based on the same evidence relied on at the Court of First Instance.

The Court of Appeal held that the case was correctly decided by the lower Court, having properly considered the evidence. In particular, it was noted that the plaintiff had never raised an objection regarding the deceased patient’s medical history or the treatment received by him at PMH. The Court of Appeal upheld the lower Court decision and ruled that the plaintiff’s case lacked legal basis and her case was frivolous and vexatious, and constituted abuse of process.

Leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal not granted

The plaintiff sought leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal. Pursuant to section 22(1)(b) of the Court of Final Appeal Ordinance (Cap. 484), leave to appeal will only be granted if the question involved is of great general or public importance, or otherwise. The Court explained that ‘otherwise’ referred to other highly unusual matters of the case. The Court held that the plaintiff had failed to prove any of the above and the application for leave to appeal was dismissed.

Comment

The courts in deciding claims which are frivolous, vexatious or lacking legal basis will continue to adhere to long established legal principles and consider evidence from both parties to the proceedings, in order to achieve a just and fair disposal. In the event of litigation, medical professionals should understand their legal rights and seek timely legal advice for early preservation of evidence and proper preparation of their defence.