Ip Pui Lam Arthur and Another v. Ho Yuk Wah David (A Bankrupt) and Others
Read the full judgment text of HCA 2587/2017 on BabelCite. This High Court CFI judgment was delivered on 20 April 2018.
1. Page 2, paragraph 1 and line G, “Stephen Harwood (“SH”) should read as “Stephenson Harwood”.
Cited by 2 cases · Cites 1 case
|
HCA 2587/2017 IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE ACTION NO 2587 OF 2017 ______________________ BETWEEN
Before: Deputy High Court Judge Kent Yee in Chambers Date of Hearing: 4 January 2018 Date of Further written submissions: 16 & 23March 2018 Date of Decision: 20 April 2018 Date of Corrigendum: 5 July 2018 _______________ CORRIGENDUM _______________ Please note that the following corrections in the Decision handed down by Deputy High Court Judge Kent Yee on 20 April 2018: 1.Page 2, paragraph 1 and line G, “Stephen Harwood (“SH”) should read as “Stephenson Harwood”. 2.Page 3, paragraph 3 and line B, “… as its trustee …” should read as “… as his trustee …”. 3.Page 4, paragraph 13 and line T, “… open with …” should read as “… opened with …”. 4.Page 8, paragraph 28 and line T, “… the Ex-parte judge …” should read as “… the Ex-parte Judge …”. 5.Page 9, paragraph 29 and line C, “… the KYC letter …” should read as “… the KYC Letter …”. 6.Page 9, paragraph 31 and line R, “… to serve on …” should read as “… to be serve on …”. 7.Page 10, paragraph 32 and line E, “… Grassmere at look the hearing, the Ex parte Judge …” should read as “… Grassmere at the hearing, the Ex-parte Judge …”. 8.Page 10, paragraph 33 and line H, “… the Ex parte Judge …” should read as “… the Ex-parte Judge …”. 9.Page 15, paragraph 53 and line S, “Grassmere has along been legally represented.” should read as “Grassmere has all along been legally represented.”. 10.Page 15, paragraph 53 and line T, “… KYC been properly been informed …” should read as “… KYC been properly informed …”. 11.Page 16, paragraph 57 and line Q to R, “…shall not take into any of the …” should read as “… shall not take into account any of the …”. 12.Page 20, paragraph 70 and line J, “The DFIL Shares has not been turned into …” should read as “The DFIL Shares have not been turned into …”. 13.Page 20, paragraph 72 and line T, “… a propriety injunction …” should read as ““… a proprietary injunction …”.
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Cases cited in this judgment
Other judgments that cite this case
Further hearings and rulings under HCA 2587/2017