Arrowtown Assets Ltd v. The Collector of Stamp Revenue
Case No.CACV 118/2002
Court
Court of Appeal
Date13 Aug 2003
Judge—
Case Document
100%
CACV0001180/2002
CACV 118/2002
IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE
HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION
COURT 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
-------------------------------
CORRIGENDUM
-------------------------------
Kindly note the following corrections in the Judgment of the above case handed down by the Court of Appeal on 17 March 2003:
Para. 221, lines M -O,
the opening bracket before the word "contained" be deleted, [44], [50] & [51] be deleted and substituted with [210], [216] and [217] respectively so that the first 7 lines in paragraph 221 should read as :
221. In contrast, however, sometimes terms in tax legislation do not have a broad commercial meaning. It is crucial to bear this in mind because in this situation, the innovation introduced by the Ramsay Principle contained in Lord Brightman's words in Furniss v Dawson (see paragraphs [210] and [216] above) has little, if any, application. Lord Hoffmann put the matter in this way in his speech in Macniven at paragraph 49 (following on from the passage I have given in paragraph [217] above ) (393C-E):-
Dated 13th August 2003
(Hidy Yeung)
Clerk to Hon Ma CJHC
for Registrar, High Court
Summaries and metadata are generated from the judgment. Report an error