You are here:
  • Home
  • »
  • Products
  • »
  • Hii Chii Kok v 1 Ooi Peng Jin London Lucien; 2

Hii Chii Kok v 1 Ooi Peng Jin London Lucien; 2

Steel machining - Customized shape and size →Click on

Ordinary Steel structure OEM&ODM →Click on

Pressure vessel/large tank processing →Click on

Other steel structure processing →Click on

  • Product Description

The Right to Know and the Right Not to Know Revisited

Jul 13,2017 Hii Chii Kok v 1 Ooi Peng Jin London Lucien; 2#0183;Secondly,we consider the significance,relative to the claimed rights,of the UK Supreme Courts decision in Montgomery v Lanarkshire Health Board Footnote 4 and,concomitantly,of the Singapore Court of Appeals recent decision in Hii Chii Kok v Ooi Peng Jin London Lucien Footnote 5 where,subject to some minor revision,the approach in The Modified Montgomery Test A New Standard of Care The Modified Montgomery Test A New Standard of Care Imposed on a Doctors Duty to Advise as Set Out in Hii Chii Kok v Ooi Peng Jin London Lucien and another [2017] SGCA 38.The Duty To Inform And The Doctors Dilemma NUS YongThe law governing the duty to inform,set out in the United Kingdom Supreme Court in Montgomery v Lanarkshire Health Board 3 (Montgomery),was adopted by the Singapore Court of Appeal in Hii Chii Kok v Ooi Peng Jin London Lucien 4 (Hii Chii Kok).Under the Montgomery/Hii Chii Kok test,a doctor is under a duty to inform a patient of

Some results are removed in response to a notice of local law requirement.For more information,please see here.Previous123456NextSMU Lexicon The demise of Bolam-Bolitho Towards Patient

Oct 26,2018 Hii Chii Kok v 1 Ooi Peng Jin London Lucien; 2#0183;Reading Time 9 minutes Introduction.The recent Court of Appeal decision in Hii Chii Kok v Ooi Peng Jin London Lucien (Hii Chii Kok) has been a long time coming.Affirming the demise of the antiquated Bolam-Bolitho test in relation to pre-treatment advice,this decision also adds Singapore to a growing list of countries which have embraced the concept of patient autonomy.Some results are removed in response to a notice of local law requirement.For more information,please see here.Skrine - Advocates SolicitorsJun 30,2017 Hii Chii Kok v 1 Ooi Peng Jin London Lucien; 2#0183;Loo Peh Fern and Wen Shan explain why that may no longer be the case for medical advice.The Court of Appeal,the apex court of Singapore,in Hii Chii Kok v Ooi Peng Jin London Lucien [2017] SGCA 38 has taken another incremental approach in raising the standard of care,this time in relation to a doctors duty in advising the patient on medical treatment.

Singapore Law Blog

In Hii Chii Kok v Ooi Peng Jin London Lucien and another [2017] SGCA 38 (Hii Chii Kok),the Singapore Court of Appeal (the Court) departed from this decade-old approach.The Court,noting the seismic shift in medical ethics and societal attitudes since a decade ago (at [120]),held that the Bolam-Bolitho test should no longer Seminar on the Doctors Duty to Advise Brief background of Hii Chii Kok v Ooi Peng Jin London Lucien and NCCS New test for doctors duty in giving medical advice QA Please note that only general information (and not legal advice) will be provided in this seminar.You may wish to seek legal advice if you require specific assistance.SMU Lexicon The demise of Bolam-Bolitho Towards Patient Oct 26,2018 Hii Chii Kok v 1 Ooi Peng Jin London Lucien; 2#0183;Reading Time 9 minutes Introduction.The recent Court of Appeal decision in Hii Chii Kok v Ooi Peng Jin London Lucien (Hii Chii Kok) has been a long time coming.Affirming the demise of the antiquated Bolam-Bolitho test in relation to pre-treatment advice,this decision also adds Singapore to a growing list of countries which have embraced the concept of patient autonomy.

Medical malpractice - Singapore Court adopts new standard

May 17,2017 Hii Chii Kok v 1 Ooi Peng Jin London Lucien; 2#0183;It is this very issue which came before the Singapore Court of Appeal in Hii Chii Kok v Ooi Peng Jin London Lucien and another [2017] SGCA 38.The facts.Clement Hii Chii Kok Medical Negligence - The new legal test in Singapore to May 31,2017 Hii Chii Kok v 1 Ooi Peng Jin London Lucien; 2#0183;[co-author Yvonne Ong] Introduction.The Singapore Court of Appeal has in its recent judgment in the case of Hii Chii Kok v Ooi Peng Jin London Lucien and another [2017] SGCA 38 (Hii Chii Kok v Medical Negligence - The New Legal Test In Singapore To Jun 12,2017 Hii Chii Kok v 1 Ooi Peng Jin London Lucien; 2#0183;Introduction.The Singapore Court of Appeal has in its recent judgment in the case of Hii Chii Kok v Ooi Peng Jin London Lucien and another [2017] SGCA 38 (Hii Chii Kok v London Lucien Ooi) delivered on 12 May 2017,decided that the Bolam test (as supplemented by the Bolitho addendum) (referred to herein simply as the Bolam test) is no longer the applicable legal test to adjudicate on the

Medical Negligence - The New Legal Test In Singapore To

Jun 12,2017 Hii Chii Kok v 1 Ooi Peng Jin London Lucien; 2#0183;Introduction.The Singapore Court of Appeal has in its recent judgment in the case of Hii Chii Kok v Ooi Peng Jin London Lucien and another [2017] SGCA 38 (Hii Chii Kok v London Lucien Ooi) delivered on 12 May 2017,decided that the Bolam test (as supplemented by the Bolitho addendum) (referred to herein simply as the Bolam test) is no longer the applicable legal test to adjudicate on the Medical Law ReviewHii Chii Kok v (1) Ooi Peng Jin London Lucien; (2) National Cancer Centre Modifying MontgomeryMedical Law ReviewHii Chii Kok v (1) Ooi Peng Jin London Lucien; (2) National Cancer Centre Modifying Montgomery

Informed Consent 101 - AMS

1.The balance between patient autonomy and beneficence 2.Movement towards a patient centred test 3.Considerations under the modified Montgomery test in Hii Chii Kok v Ooi Peng Jin London Lucien [2017] (Hii Chii Kok) 4.Lessons from Hii Chii Kok 5.QA 1Informed Consent 101 - AMS1.The balance between patient autonomy and beneficence 2.Movement towards a patient centred test 3.Considerations under the modified Montgomery test in Hii Chii Kok v Ooi Peng Jin London Lucien [2017] (Hii Chii Kok) 4.Lessons from Hii Chii Kok 5.QA 1Ill Advice or Ill-advised? Negligent Medical Advice and Jul 28,2017 Hii Chii Kok v 1 Ooi Peng Jin London Lucien; 2#0183;I.INTRODUCTION.When is a doctor liable for giving a patient negligent medical advice? In the case of Hii Chii Kok v Ooi Peng Jin London Lucien [Hii Chii Kok],1 the Court of Appeal departed from established case law and created a new test to determine the standard of care a doctor must meet to discharge his duty to the patient he is advising.This article will outline the state of the

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE REPUBLIC OF

His judgment is reported as Hii Chii Kok v Ooi Peng Jin London Lucien and another SGHC 21 (the Judgment).Having considered the various issues,we largely agree with the Judge and dismiss the appeal in its entirety.Additionally,we note that with regard to the negligent advice claim,the Judge,who was bound by a previousHii Chii Kok v (1) Ooi Peng Jin London Lucien; (2 abstract = In Hii Chii Kok v (1) Ooi Peng Jin London Lucien; (2) National Cancer Centre,the Singapore Court of Appeal followed the approach of other Commonwealth jurisdictions by rejecting the application of Bolam as the standard of disclosure in claimsGerald Soo - Litigation Associate - Yuen Law LinkedInView Gerald Soos profile on LinkedIn,the world's largest professional community.Gerald has 15 jobs listed on their profile.See the complete profile on LinkedIn and discover Geralds

File Size 655KBPage Count 115Hii Chii Kok v (1) Ooi Peng Jin London Lucien; (2

Jan 28,2019 Hii Chii Kok v 1 Ooi Peng Jin London Lucien; 2#0183;In Hii Chii Kok v (1) Ooi Peng Jin London Lucien; (2) National Cancer Centre(Hii),2the Singapore court said that the Bolamstandard was doctor-centred as it focused upon whether a responsible body of medical opinion would have given the advice in question.3The need to obtain a patients informed consent to medical treatment,however,arose from the central principleEthical and legal issues of tracheostomy ventilation in Feb 13,2019 Hii Chii Kok v 1 Ooi Peng Jin London Lucien; 2#0183;The judgements in Montgomery v.Lanarkshire and Hii Chii Kok v.Ooi Peng Jin London Lucien and another reflect present judicial mind-sets that a patient is usually considered the best judge of his own interests,25,26 though there may be exceptional circumstances where he lacks the ability to make such a decision.Under the Singapore Mental EEC SERIES a new test for Medical negligenceHii Chii Kok v Ooi Peng Jin London Lucien [2017] SGCA 38 at [144].10.Hii Chii Kok v Ooi Peng Jin London Lucien [2017] SGCA 38 at [154].11.N.B.that in deciding whether the situation is so critical that there is no opportunity to provide information to the patient,the court will apply the Bolam test.

Cited by 2Publish Year 2019Author Louise V AustinSome results are removed in response to a notice of local law requirement.For more information,please see here.12345NextThe Trojan Horse of Therapeutic Privilege in Hii Chii Kok

Jul 12,2018 Hii Chii Kok v 1 Ooi Peng Jin London Lucien; 2#0183;I.INTRODUCTION.The 2017 Court of Appeal case Hii Chii Kok v Ooi Peng Jin London Lucien 1 [Hii Chii Kok] has been heralded as [t]he end of the doctors know best era by commentators.2 In a landmark decision,a Coram of five Judges unanimously rejected the unapologetically paternalistic Bolam-Bolitho 3 test for negligent advice in favour of a three-stage test based on the UK Cited by 2Publish Year 2019Author Louise V AustinHii Chii Kok v (1) Ooi Peng Jin London Lucien; (2 abstract = In Hii Chii Kok v (1) Ooi Peng Jin London Lucien; (2) National Cancer Centre,the Singapore Court of Appeal followed the approach of other Commonwealth jurisdictions by rejecting the application of Bolam as the standard of disclosure in claimsCited by 2Publish Year 2019Author Louise V AustinHii Chii Kok v (1) Ooi Peng Jin London Lucien; (2 In Hii Chii Kok v (1) Ooi Peng Jin London Lucien; (2) National Cancer Centre,the Singapore Court of Appeal followed the approach of other Commonwealth jurisdictions by rejecting the application of Bolam as the standard of disclosure in claims concerning informed consent to medical treatment.Instead,the court employed a modified version of the standard of disclosure adopted in Montgomery v

Cited by 2Publish Year 2019Author Louise V AustinHii Chii Kok v (1) Ooi Peng Jin London Lucien; (2

In Hii Chii Kok v (1) Ooi Peng Jin London Lucien; (2) National Cancer Centre,the Singapore Court of Appeal followed the approach of other Commonwealth jurisdictions by rejecting the application of Bolam as the standard of disclosure in claims concerning informed consent to medical treatment.Changes in the Law of Medical Negligence - The Singapore Hii Chii Kok v Ooi Peng Jin London Lucien [2017] SGCA 38 at [132].6. Hii Chii Kok v Ooi Peng Jin London Lucien [2017] SGCA 38 at [138].7. Hii Chii Kok v Ooi Peng Jin London Lucien [2017] SGCA 38 at [141].One example of such a risk is the risk ofCh.20 The Law of Negligence singaporelawwatch.sgCh.20 The Law of Negligence.SECTION 1 INTRODUCTION.20.1.1 In the more than eighty years since its inception as a distinct cause of action in Donoghue v Stevenson [1932] AC 562 (Donoghue),negligence has developed to become the pre-eminent tort,eclipsing older actions such as trespass,nuisance and breach of statutory duty..20.1.2 The law of negligence in Singapore is based largely on

CHAN PRABAKARAN BEng (Mechanical) (Hons) (National

5 Bolam v Friern Hospital Management Committee [1957] 1 WLR 582.6 See para 6.1 above; see also Hii Chii Kok v Ooi Peng Jin London Lucien [2016] 2 SLR 544 at [5].7 [2002] 2 SLR 414.8 See Dr Khoo James v Gunapathy d/o Muniandy [2002] 2 SLR 414 at [142].9 See,eg,Tong Seok May Joanne v Yau Hok Man Gordon [2013] 2 SLR 18.CHAN PRABAKARAN BEng (Mechanical) (Hons) (National 5 Bolam v Friern Hospital Management Committee [1957] 1 WLR 582.6 See para 6.1 above; see also Hii Chii Kok v Ooi Peng Jin London Lucien [2016] 2 SLR 544 at [5].7 [2002] 2 SLR 414.8 See Dr Khoo James v Gunapathy d/o Muniandy [2002] 2 SLR 414 at [142].9 See,eg,Tong Seok May Joanne v Yau Hok Man Gordon [2013] 2 SLR 18.CASE UPDATE2.This was the question facing the Court of Appeal in the recent decision of .Hii Chii Kok v Ooi Peng Jin London Lucien and another [2017] SGCA 38,which involved claims of negligence brought by a patient who had undergone a major pancreatic surgery that later turned out to be unnecessary.Although

CASE UPDATE

2.This was the question facing the Court of Appeal in the recent decision of .Hii Chii Kok v Ooi Peng Jin London Lucien and another [2017] SGCA 38,which involved claims of negligence brought by a patient who had undergone a major pancreatic surgery that later turned out to be unnecessary.Although(2019).Hii Chii Kok v (1) Ooi Peng Jin London Lucien; (2 sent.In Hii Chii Kok v (1) Ooi Peng Jin London Lucien; (2) National Cancer Centre (Hii),2 the Singapore court said that the Bolam standard was doctor-centred as it fo-cused upon whether a responsible body of medical opinion would have given the advice VC The Author(s) 2019.Published by Oxford University Press.

Leave a Message

24 Hour steel Machining Response - Contact Now