中紀投資有限公司 v. 青山道國際工業大廈業主立案法團

Read the full judgment text of CACV 96/2021 on BabelCite. This Court of Appeal judgment was delivered on 18 November 2021.

1. In paragraph 9.5 at page 5 line Q to page 6 line B,

Cited by 2 cases · Cites 1 case

Case No.CACV 96/2021[2021] HKCA 1737
Court
Court of Appeal
Date18 Nov 2021
Judge
Case Document
100%Judiciary

CACV 96/2021

[2021] HKCA 1737

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO 96 OF 2021

(ON APPEAL FROM LDBM NO 118 OF 2017)

________________________

BETWEEN    
  中紀投資有限公司 Applicant
  and
  青山道國際工業大廈業主立案法團 Respondent

________________________

Before: Hon Yuen and Chu JJA in Court
Date of Hearing and Judgment: 12 November 2021
Date of Reasons for Judgment: 18 November 2021

________________________

CORRIGENDUM

________________________

Please note the following corrigendum for the Reasons for Judgment dated 18 November 2021:-

1.In paragraph 9.5 at page 5 line Q to page 6 line B,

“In March 2018, the 9A owner removed the existing window frames (referred to in the Judgment as the “Pre-Window Frames”) and installed new ones on 18 March 2018 (referred to in the Judgment as the “Post-Window Frames”).

should read

“In March 2018, the 9A owner removed the existing window frames (referred to in the Judgment as the “Pre-Window Frames”) and installed new ones9a on 18 March 2018 (referred to in the Judgment as the “Post-Window Frames”).”.

Dated this 7th day of December, 2021

  (Lisa Leung)
  for Registrar, High Court


9a  According to the PO’s review decision (para. 35), “it is not in dispute that the Pre-Window Frames and the Post-Window Frames are in fact the same structures.  The difference between the Pre-Window Frames and the Post-Window Frames is very technical, in that it is unknown as to how the Pre-Window Frames were affixed whilst the Post-Window Frames were affixed by Tiff as prescribed registered contractor under the minor works scheme in March 2018”.