Yeung Lai Ping v. Secretary for Justice
Read the full judgment text of HCPI 833/2002 on BabelCite. This High Court CFI judgment was delivered on 1 April 2019.
1. Page 20, paragraph 29 and line N, “…Dr Sunny Tsui had not asked whether she could manage to perform SX and, further, that he had had not asked her whether she …” should read as “…Dr Sunny Tsui had not asked whether she could manage to perform SX and, further, that he had had not asked her whether she …”.
Cited by 7 cases · Cites 1 case
|
HCPI 833/2002 [2019] HKCFI 881 IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE PERSONAL INJURIES ACTION NO 833 OF 2002 __________________________
__________________________ Before: The Hon. Mr Justice Bharwaney in Court Dates of Hearing: 12-15, 19-21 December 2016 and 2 March 2017 Dates of Further Written Submissions: 10, 17, 21 and 27 March 2017 Date of Judgment: 1 April 2019 ______________________________ C O R R I G E N D U M ______________________________ Kindly note that the following corrections in the Judgment given out by the Honourable Mr Justice Bharwaney on 1 April 2019: 1. Page 20, paragraph 29 and line N, “…Dr Sunny Tsui had not asked whether she could manage to perform SX and, further, that he had had not asked her whether she …” should read as “…Dr Sunny Tsui had not asked whether she could manage to perform SX and, further, that he had had not asked her whether she …”. 2. Page 25, paragraph 35 and line N, “…However, Dr Yeung was of the opinion that the positive ulnar are variance was a predisposing cause of the TFC injury.” should read as “…However, Dr Yeung was of the opinion that the positive ulnar are variance was a predisposing cause of the TFC injury.”. 3. Page 35, paragraph 51 and line D, “…on the part of the plaintiff would be to rely upon the plaintiff’s failure to have regard to our own safety…” should read as “…on the part of the plaintiff would be to rely upon the plaintiff’s failure to have regard to our her own safety…”. 4. Page 36, paragraph 54 and line P, “…The Strain Index: a Proposed Method to Analyse Jobs for Risk of Distil Upper Extremity Disorders…” should read as “…The Strain Index: a Proposed Method to Analyse Jobs for Risk of Distil Distal Upper Extremity Disorders…”. 5. Page 38, paragraph 58 and line I, “Appendix A to the Stain Index contains a “User’s Guide for the Stain Index” which is set out in the appendix to this judgment. It was not disputed that, according to Step 5 of the User’s Guide for the Stain Index…” should read as “…Appendix A to the Stain Strain Index contains a “User’s Guide for the Stain Strain Index” which is set out in the appendix to this judgment. It was not disputed that, according to Step 5 of the User’s Guide for the Stain Strain Index…”. 6. Page 98, paragraph 134 and line P, “…In Cheng Yuk Chun in Lee Yau Wai v Yeung Kam Wing Master Marlene Ng…” should read as “…In Cheng Yuk Chun in Lee Yau Wai v Yeung Kam Wing Master Marlene Ng…”. 7. Page 136, footnote 316, “Nizami v. London Management Clubs Ltd [1985] 1 WLR 784” should read as “Nizami v. London Management Clubs Ltd [2004] EWHC 2577 (QB)”. 8. Page 142, footnote 334, “[2005] PIQR Q32” should read as “[2005] PIQR Q2”. Dated this 8th day of May 2019
| ||||||||||||||||
Cases cited in this judgment
Other judgments that cite this case
Further hearings and rulings under HCPI 833/2002