HK CourtDB
HomeDirectoryMCP
Hong Kong CourtDB
Back to directory
Miscellaneous Proceedings (Civil)2015

SIN CHUNG YIN RONALD AND OTHERS v. THE DENTAL COUNCIL OF HONG KONG

Related cases with same parties

  • CACV1211/2001DR SIN CHUNG YIN RONALD AND OTHERS v. THE DENTAL COUNCIL OF HONG KONG
  • CACV149/2013SIN CHUNG YIN RONALD AND OTHERS v. THE DENTAL COUNCIL OF HONG KONG
  • CACV150/2007Dr YOUNG YAU YAU, CECILIA v. THE DENTAL COUNCIL OF HONG KONG
  • CACV157/2005TSOI HING WO v. THE DENTAL COUNCIL OF HONG KONG
  • CACV160/2005DR. DENG YUMENG AND ANOTHER v. THE DENTAL COUNCIL OF HONG KONG
  • CACV183/2014WONG KIN KWOK MICHAEL v. THE DENTAL COUNCIL OF HONG KONG
  • CACV194/2010NG KIN WAI v. THE DENTAL COUNCIL OF HONG KONG
  • CACV213/1993YAN WING YIU v. THE DENTAL COUNCIL OF HONG KONG
  • CACV52/1983DOCTOR ROGER GORDON BISHOP v. THE DENTAL COUNCIL OF HONG KONG
  • CACV86/2013DR TSE KIT MING v. THE DENTAL COUNCIL OF HONG KONG
  • FACV6/2016SIN CHUNG YIN RONALD AND OTHERS v. THE DENTAL COUNCIL OF HONG KONG
  • HCA2176/2012SINODENTAL INVESTMENTS LTD AND OTHERS v. SIN CHUNG YIN RONALD AND OTHERS
  • HCAL1276/2019YOUNG YAU YAU CECILIA v. THE DENTAL COUNCIL OF HONG KONG
  • HCAL1294/2019WAN MING YEUNG v. THE DENTAL COUNCIL OF HONG KONG
  • HCAL35/2011JEREMY TUNG v. THE DENTAL COUNCIL OF HONG KONG
  • HCAL42/2012DR. CHAN SZE LAI, JACQUELINE v. THE DENTAL COUNCIL OF HONG KONG
  • HCAL85/1999HENK TIDEMAN v. THE DENTAL COUNCIL OF HONG KONG
  • HCCW404/2011SIN CHUNG YIN RONALD AND OTHERS v. SINODENTAL INVESTMENTS LTD AND ANOTHER
103268-EN-2016-03-22

SIN CHUNG YIN RONALD AND OTHERS v. THE DENTAL COUNCIL OF HONG KONG

HTML content

FAMV No. 2 of 2015

IN THE COURT OF FINAL APPEAL OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

MISCELLANEOUS PROCEEDINGS NO. 2 OF 2015 (CIVIL)

(ON APPLICATION FOR LEAVE TO APPEAL FROM

CACV NO. 149 OF 2013)

_____________________

BETWEEN:

 SIN CHUNG YIN DONALD ( 冼仲彥)
CHU KAI YU ( 朱啟裕)
CHOW KAR WAH ( 周家華)
SO WING TONG JACKY ( 蘇永棠)
1st Appellant
2nd Appellant
3rd Appellant
4th Appellant
(Applicants)
 and
 THE DENTAL COUNCIL OF HONG KONG
Respondent
(Respondent)

_____________________

Appeal Committee:Mr Justice Ribeiro PJ, Mr Justice Tang PJ and Mr Justice Fok PJ
Date of Hearing and Determination: 22 March 2016

_____________________________

DETERMINATION

______________________________

Mr Justice Ribeiro PJ :

1.  We are satisfied that leave to appeal should be granted in respect of the following questions raising points of law of the requisite public importance, namely:

In disciplinary proceedings charging registered dentists who are directors of a dental company for unprofessional conduct by reason of that company having breached its statutory duty under the Dentists’ Registration Ordinance (Cap 156) section 12 by employing an unregistered person to perform dental services:-

(a) Was the Council entitled to find unprofessional conduct is made out even though that unregistered person had previously been duly registered and his removal from the General Register was unknown to the applicants and unknown to the dental company over the relevant period?

(b) Does the answer to the foregoing Question depend on whether such absence of knowledge is properly characterised as negligent or as involving negligence rising ‘to the level of an elemental and grievous failure’?

(c) Was the Court of Appeal right to hold that directors of dental companies have a professional duty to ensure that only registered dentists are employed by the company, to verify the registered status of employed dentists in compiling the annual return and to confirm the accuracy of the annual return; and that inserting the relevant person’s name in the annual return required to be filed by DRO section 12(3) amounted to a warranty that he was a registered dentist?

2.  We also grant leave to appeal on the basis that reasonably arguable questions relating to essential procedural fairness arise which ought to be submitted to the Court for decision in relation to the findings of the Council, upheld by the Court of Appeal, bearing on the applicants’ knowledge or negligence, in the light of the Charge’s formulation and the manner in which the Inquiry was conducted.

3.  The appeal will be heard on 14 October 2016.

(R.A.V. Ribeiro)(Robert Tang)(Joseph Fok)
Permanent JudgePermanent JudgePermanent Judge

Mr Johnny Mok SC and Ms Catrina Lam, instructed by Ching & Co., for the Applicants

Mr Anthony Ismail, instructed by the Department of Justice, for the Respondent