Arrowtown Assets Ltd v. The Collectorof Stamp Revenue

Read the full judgment text of CACV 118/2002 on BabelCite. This Court of Appeal judgment.

Case No.CACV 118/2002
Court
Court of Appeal
Date
Judge
Case Document
100%Judiciary

CACV000118N/2002

CACV118/2002

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

CIVIL OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 118 OF 2002

(ON APPEAL FROM DCSA 52 OF 2000)

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

BETWEEN
Arrowtown Assets Limited Appellant
AND
The Collector of Stamp Revenue Respondent

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

C O R R I G E N D U M

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

Kindly note the following correction in the Judgment of the above case dated 17 March 2003.

Paragraph 134, the emphasised part of the quoted passage of Lord Wilberforce at p.326E in WT Ramsay Ltd. v IRC [1982] AC 300 is as follows:-

" ...... Lord Wilberforce at p.326E held that,

"The capital gains tax was created to operate in a real world, not that of make-belief ... it is a tax on gains ... it is not a tax on arithmetical differences. To say that a loss (or gain) which appears to arise at one stage in an indivisible process, and which is intended to be and is cancelled out by a later stage, so that at the end of what was bought as, and planned as, a single continuous operation, there is not such a loss (or gain) as the legislation is dealing with, is in my opinion well and indeed essentially within the judicial function." (emphasis added)"

Dated this 9th day of April, 2003.

( L. Mak )(Ms)
Clerk to Hon. Cheung, J.A.