Jimmy Investment Co Ltd v. Kan Chun
Read the full judgment text of HCMP 680/1980 on BabelCite. This High Court CFI judgment.
1. The applications before us were, first, for leave to appeal and, secondly, for compromise of the appeal. The application for leave to appeal originally came before the court on a previous occasion when the learned Chief Justice, who was presiding, indicated that there was in draft a judgment in another appeal which would clearly decide the point in issue here. As a result of that a further application has now come before the court today and we gave leave to appeal. In Poon Ming-yin v Cheung Y
|
HCMP000680/1980
----------------- Coram: Huggins and Cons, JJ.A. and Garcia, J. Date of Judgment: 21st November, 1980. ----------------- JUDGMENT ----------------- Huggins, J.A.: 1. The applications before us were, first, for leave to appeal and, secondly, for compromise of the appeal. The application for leave to appeal originally came before the court on a previous occasion when the learned Chief Justice, who was presiding, indicated that there was in draft a judgment in another appeal which would clearly decide the point in issue here. As a result of that a further application has now come before the court today and we gave leave to appeal. In Poon Ming-yin v Cheung Yuet-ngor Civil Appeal 1980 No. 66 the point in issue was clearly decided in favour of the landlord. That is not disputed. We therefore allow the appeal, enter judgment for the Plaintiff and, by consent, make an order in the terms of paragraphs 2 to 6 in the Notice of Motion. 21st November, 1980. Representation: |