Skip to main content

Advertisement

Log in

Liability for Dispensing Errors in Hong Kong

  • Original Paper
  • Published:
Asian Bioethics Review Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The United Kingdom (UK) case R v Lee (2010) EWCA Crim 1404 resulted in a pharmacist being convicted for an inadvertent dispensing error and paved way for the decriminalisation of such errors by way of a due diligence defence enacted in 2018. In relation to Hong Kong (HK), what is its legal position for dispensing errors, and can it follow the decriminalising steps of UK? The primary objective of this paper is to explore whether and how HK can reach the normative position for a dispensing error legal regime: (1) I posit that the normative position for healthcare professional (HCP) liability for dispensing errors should prioritise the public interest of minimisation of future dispensing errors over the retribution of past wrongs; (2) I illustrate HK’s current position for the liabilities of HCPs on dispensing errors, focusing analysis on the relatively controversial aspects of HK’s criminal liability, referencing the landmark cases Hin Lin Yee v HKSAR (2009) 13 HKCFAR 142 and Kulemesin v HKSAR (2013) 16 HKCFAR 195 to assist my analysis of the requisite mental element for relevant statutory offences; (3) through comparison with UK’s development post-R v Lee and application of Rule of Law principles, HK’s current position is critiqued, coming to the conclusion that while there are compelling reasons for the decriminalisation of dispensing errors in HK, the prerequisite for this to happen is an overhaul of regulatory frameworks by significantly increasing levels of accountability.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Similar content being viewed by others

Data Availability

Not applicable.

References

Legislation Cited

Cases Cited

  • Barnett v Chelsea & Kensington Hospital Management Committee. 1969, 1 QB 428.

  • Bolam v Friern Hospital Management Committee. 1957, 2 All ER 118.

  • Bolitho v City and Hackney Health Authority. 1998, AC 232.

  • Chester v Afshar. 2005, 1 AC 134.

  • Collins v Wilcock. 1984, 1 WLR 1172.

  • Cox v Ministry of Justice. 2016, UKSC 10.

  • Hin Lin Yee v HKSAR. 2010, 13 HKCFAR 142.

  • HKSAR v Hin Lin Yee. 2009, HKEC 875.

  • HKSAR v Mak Wan Ling. 2019, HKCFA 37.

  • Hughes v Lord Advocate. 1963, AC 837.

  • Jolley v Sutton London Borough Council. 2000, 1 WLR 1082.

  • Kulemesin v HKSAR. 2013, 16 HKCFAR 195.

  • Lister v Hesley Hall. 2001, UKHL 22.

  • Mahoney v Prestatyn Magistrates’ Court. 2009, EWHC 3237.

  • Ming An Insurance Co (HK) Ltd v Ritz-Carlton Ltd. 2002, 5 HKCFAR 569.

  • Montgomery v Lanarkshire Health Board. 2015, 2 WLR 768.

  • Nettleship v Weston. 1971, 2 QB 691.

  • Overseas Tankship (UK) Ltd v Morts Dock & Engineering Co (The Wagon Mound) (No. 1). 1961, AC 388.

  • Poon Chau Nam v Yim Siu Cheung. 2007, 10 HKCFAR 156.

  • R v Adomako. 1995, 1 AC 171.

  • R v Ireland. 1998, AC 147.

  • R v Lee. 2010, EWCA Crim 1404.

  • R v Statutory Committee of Pharmaceutical Society of Great Britan, ex parte Pharmaceutical Society of Great Britain. 1981, 1 WLR 886.

  • R v Venna. 1976, QB 421.

  • Smith v Leech Brain & Co. 1962, 2 QB 405.

  • So Wai Lun v HKSAR. 2006, 3 HKLRD 394.

  • South Australia Asset Management Corp v York Montague Ltd. 1997, AC 191.

  • Various Claimants v Institute of the Brothers of the Christian Schools. 2012, UKSC 56.

  • Ziderman v General Dental Council. 1976, 1 WLR 330.

Download references

Acknowledgements

Much of the research of this article was carried out while I was a Juris Doctor candidate of the University of Hong Kong (‘HKU’). I express my gratitude to Mr. Terry Kaan (Associate Professor, Faculty of Law, HKU) for his continued guidance, encouragement, and support. I also thank my wife and family for their encouragement and support.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Cedric Tang.

Ethics declarations

Competing Interests

The author declares no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Tang, C. Liability for Dispensing Errors in Hong Kong. ABR 13, 435–462 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s41649-021-00175-1

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s41649-021-00175-1

Keywords

Navigation