Taching Petroleum Co, Ltd v. Meyer Aluminium Ltd

Read the full judgment text of CACV 477/2020 on BabelCite. This Court of Appeal judgment was delivered on 5 January 2021.

1.  Page 23 paragraph 67: “It is therefore not right for Mr Lee to assume that the Tribunal would exercise the discretion in the same way as did the Court of First Instance .” should read “It is therefore not right for Mr Lee to assume that the Court of First Instance would exercise the discretion in the same way as did the Tribunal .”

Cited by 4 cases · Cites 2 cases

Case No.CACV 477/2020[2021] HKCA 294
Court
Court of Appeal
Date05 Jan 2021
Judge
Case Document
100%Judiciary

CACV 477/2020, CACV 478/2020,
CACV 621/2020 and CACV 622/2020
(Heard together)

[2021] HKCA 294

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO 477 OF 2020 AND 621 OF 2020

(ON APPEAL FROM CTA 1/2018)

_________________________

BETWEEN    
TACHING PETROLEUM COMPANY, LIMITED Plaintiff
and
MEYER ALUMINIUM LIMITED Defendant

_________________________

AND

CIVIL APPEAL NO 478 OF 2020 AND 622 OF 2020

(ON APPEAL FROM CTA 2/2018)

_________________________

BETWEEN    
SHELL HONG KONG LIMITED Plaintiff
and
MEYER ALUMINIUM LIMITED Defendant

_________________________

(Heard together)

Before: Hon Poon CJHC and Lam VP in Court

Date of Hearing: 5 January 2021

Date of Judgment: 5 January 2021

Date of Reasons for Judgment: 11 March 2021

Date of Corrigendum: 16 June 2021

________________________

CORRIGENDUM

________________________

Please note the following corrigendum for the Reasons for Judgment dated the 11th day of March 2021:

1.  Page 23 paragraph 67: “It is therefore not right for Mr Lee to assume that the Tribunal would exercise the discretion in the same way as did the Court of First Instance.” should read “It is therefore not right for Mr Lee to assume that the Court of First Instance would exercise the discretion in the same way as did the Tribunal.”

  (Sandy Fung)
for Registrar, High Court