He Hong Kong Polytechnic University v. Rehabaid Society
Read the full judgment text of HCA 1789/2017 on BabelCite. This High Court CFI judgment was delivered on 9 September 2022.
1. Page 13, paragraph 42, lines O and P, “…n which he liaised with…” should read as “…in which he liaised with…”.
Cited by 2 cases · Cites 1 case
|
[2022] HKCFI 2830 HCA 1789/2017 IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE ACTION NO. 1789 OF 2017 ________________
________________ Before: Deputy High Court Judge Richard Khaw SC in Court Dates of Hearing: 24-27 August 2021 and 1 September 2021 Date of Judgment: 9 September 2022 Date of Corrigendum: 27 September 2022 _____________________ C O R R I G E N D U M _____________________ Please note the following amendments in respect of the Judgment handed down by Mr Recorder Richard Khaw SC on 9 September 2022: 1. Page 13, paragraph 42, lines O and P, “…n which he liaised with…” should read as “…in which he liaised with…”. 2. Page 19, paragraph 66, line B, “Hence, the Plaintiff alleges…” should read “Hence, the Defendant alleges…”. 3. Pages 26, paragraph 86, lines T and U, “…terminable at all. I tend to think” should read “…terminable at all, I tend to think”. 4. Page 39, sub-heading E5, “Summary of findings on the Defendant’s alleged implied term” should read “Summary of findings on the Plaintiff’s alleged implied term”. 5. Page 41, paragraph 124 line I, “…why the Plaintiff shall not be entitled to…” should read “…why the Defendant shall not be entitled to…”.
| ||||||||||||||
Cases cited in this judgment
Other judgments that cite this case
Further hearings and rulings under HCA 1789/2017