But Ka Chon v. Interactive Brokers Llc
Read the full judgment text of CACV 611/2018 on BabelCite. This Court of Appeal judgment was delivered on 2 August 2019.
1. At page 16, line N to O (paragraph 40), “would have understood” should read “would not have understood”;
Cited by 5 cases · Cites 1 case
|
CACV 611/2018 [2019] HKCA 873 IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION COURT OF APPEAL CIVIL APPEAL NO 611 OF 2018 (ON APPEAL FROM HCSD NO 5 OF 2017) ________________________
________________________
________________________ Before: Hon Kwan VP, Cheung JA, Chu JA in Court Date of Hearing: 23 July 2019 Date of Judgment: 2 August 2019 Date of Corrigenda: 6 August 2019 ________________________ CORRIGENDA ________________________ Please note the following corrigenda in the Judgment dated 2 August 2019:- 1. At page 16, line N to O (paragraph 40), “would have understood” should read “would not have understood”; 2. At page 28, line S (paragraph 73), “As this appeal is to be allowed” should read “As this appeal is to be dismissed”; and 3. At page 29, line K (paragraph 76), “appeal should be allowed” should read “appeal should be dismissed”.
|
Cases cited in this judgment
Other judgments that cite this case
Further hearings and rulings under CACV 611/2018