BabelCite

Stikeman, Elliott v. Wong Ming Yuen and Another

Read the full judgment text of on BabelCite..

1.          The word "ingenuous" that appears on line 5 of page 26 of the judgment should be amended to read "ingenious".

Case No.
Court
Date—
Judge—
Case Document
100%Judiciary

CACV000113M/1983

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL

1983, No.113

(Civil )

Between

STIKEMAN, ELLIOTT (a firm) Plaintiff
and
WONG Ming Yuen 1st Defendant
BERDALAND CO. LTD. 2nd Defendant

________

Coram:    Court of Appeal (Leonard, V-P., Cons and Fuad, JJA.)

Date of Judgment: 10th February, 1984

______________

(CORRIGENDA)

______________

1.          The word "ingenuous" that appears on line 5 of page 26 of the judgment should be amended to read "ingenious".

2.        The word "fact" that appears on the last line of page 26 should be amended to read "face".

3.        The figure "C$14,000" that appears on line 3 of page 28 should be amended to read "C$40,000".

(N.C. NG)

Clerk to Mr. Justice Cons

23rd February, 1984.

Representation:

Stikeman, Elliott v. Wong Ming Yuen and Another [] | BabelCite