Worldwide International Corporation Ltd v. Gloryluck Industrial Ltd

Read the full judgment text of DCCJ 4659/2018 on BabelCite. This District Court judgment was delivered on 8 November 2024.

1. Page 4, paragraph 6, line C, “The Defendant later removed the boards of the windows and delivered vacant possession to the Plaintiff.” should read “The Plaintiff later removed the boards of the windows and delivered vacant possession to the Defendant .”.

Cited by 1 case · Cites 1 case

Case No.DCCJ 4659/2018[2024] HKDC 1886
Court
District Court
Date08 Nov 2024
Judge
Case Document
100%Judiciary

DCCJ 4659/2018

[2024] HKDC 1886

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

CIVIL ACTION NO 4659 OF 2018

------------------------

BETWEEN    
  WORLDWIDE INTERNATIONAL Plaintiff
  CORPORATION LIMITED  

and

  GLORYLUCK INDUSTRIAL LIMITED Defendant

------------------------

Before: Deputy District Judge Joseph Vaughan in Court
Dates of Hearing: 6, 7, 8 & 9 May 2024
Date of Judgment: 8 November 2024
Date of Corrigendum: 13 December 2024

--------------------------------

CORRIGENDUM

--------------------------------

Notice is hereby given that the following amendments be made to the Judgment dated 8 November 2024:-

1.Page 4, paragraph 6, line C, “The Defendant later removed the boards of the windows and delivered vacant possession to the Plaintiff.” should read “The Plaintiff later removed the boards of the windows and delivered vacant possession to the Defendant.”.

2.Page 17, paragraph 48, line K, “Mr Sae, a director of the Defendant, accepts that he does have any personal knowledge as to whether Mr Ip Senior has had any discussion with Mr Chan prior to the 1st Tenancy Agreement as alleged.” should read “Mr Sae, a director of the Defendant, accepts that he does not have any personal knowledge as to whether Mr Ip Senior has had any discussion with Mr Chan prior to the 1st Tenancy Agreement as alleged.”

3.Page 22, paragraph 66, line D, “On the other hand, it is the Defendant’s case that in breaching clause 3.04, the Defendant should be responsible for the replacing of the windows in any event.” should read “On the other hand, it is the Defendant’s case that in breaching clause 3.04, the Plaintiff should be responsible for the replacing of the windows in any event.”

  (Sissy S.C. Chan (Miss))
  Clerk to Deputy District Judge
Joseph Vaughan

Other Judgments in This Case

Further hearings and rulings under DCCJ 4659/2018