Bright Gold Ltd v. Mega Well Development Ltd

Read the full judgment text of CACV 66/2019 on BabelCite. This Court of Appeal judgment was delivered on 17 July 2020 before Lam VP, Chu JA, Au JA.

1.   Page 39, line K to L, “This was the basis he distinguished” should read “This was the basis on which he distinguished”.

Outcome: Corrigendum issued correcting two typographical errors in the Reasons for Judgment.

Cited by 5 cases · Cites 1 case

Case No.CACV 66/2019[2020] HKCA 575
Court
Court of Appeal
Date17 Jul 2020
JudgeLam VP, Chu JA, Au JA
Case Document
100%Judiciary

CACV 66/2019

[2020] HKCA 575

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO 66 OF 2019

(ON APPEAL FROM HCA 2194/2011)

________________________

BETWEEN    
  BRIGHT GOLD LIMITED Plaintiff
  and
  MEGA WELL DEVELOPMENT LIMITED Defendant

________________________

(by Original Action)

BETWEEN    
MEGA WELL DEVELOPMENT LIMITED Plaintiff
and
CENTALINE PROPERTY AGENCY LIMITED 1st Defendant
WOO KWAN LEE & LO 2nd Defendant
BRIGHT GOLD LIMITED 3rd Defendant

(By Counterclaim)

_______________________

Before: Hon Lam VP, Chu and Au JJA in Court

Dates of Hearing: 18 and 19 June 2020

Date of Judgment: 19 June 2020

Date of Reasons for Judgment: 17 July 2020

Date of Corrigendum: 1 September 2020

___________________

CORRIGENDUM

___________________

Please note the following corrigendum for the Reasons for Judgment dated the 17th July 2020: -

1.   Page 39, line K to L, “This was the basis he distinguished” should read “This was the basis on which he distinguished”.

2.   Page 44, line F, “made by Cheng in such capacity” should read “made by Centaline in such capacity”.

Dated the 1st day of September 2020

(Stanley Hui)
for Registrar, High Court