Secan Ltd v. Secan Ltd
Read the full judgment text of CACV 4062/2001 on BabelCite. This 高等法院上訴法庭 judgment was delivered on 14 June 2002 before Hon Rogers VP, Le Pichon JA.
Civil Appeal — Contract Dispute — Compliance with prior order — Effect on Appeal Decision — The Court of Appeal considered an addendum to its judgment clarifying that although the Order of Burrell J in the ACE action, referred to in the original judgment, had in fact been complied with, this did not affect the Court's decision on appeal. The parties were SECAN LIMITED (Plaintiff/Respondent) and HSIN YIEH ARCHITECTS & ASSOCIATES LTD. (Defendant/Appellant). Representation was by Mr Simon Westbrook SC for the Plaintiff and Mr Nicholas Cooney for the Defendant. The appeal related to a case from HCCT No. 69 of 2001. The addendum dated 20 June 2002 confirms that despite the compliance with the prior order, the Court's legal conclusions and orders remain as originally decided on 14 June 2002.
Outcome: The Court's decision remains unchanged despite compliance with Burrell J's order in the ACE action.
Cites 1 case
|
CACV004062M/2001 CACV 4062/2001 IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION COURT OF APPEAL CIVIL APPEAL NO. 4062 OF 2001 (ON APPEAL FROM HCCT NO. 69 OF 2001) _______________________________
_______________________________ Coram: Hon Rogers VP and Le Pichon JA in Court Date of Hearing: 7 June 2002 Date of Judgment: 14 June 2002 Date of Addendum to Judgment: 20 June 2002 _______________________________ ADDENDUM TO JUDGMENT _______________________________ Since the Judgment in this matter was handed down on 14 June 2002, it has been drawn to the Court's attention that the Order of Burrell J in the ACE action, referred to in paragraph 17 of the judgment of 14 June 2002, has in fact been complied with. The continued subsistence of the ACE action does not however alter this Court's decision.
Representation: Mr Simon Westbrook SC, instructed by Messrs Masons, for the Plaintiff/Respondent Mr Nicholas Cooney, instructed by Messrs Deacons, for the Defendant/Appellant |
Cases cited in this judgment
Further hearings and rulings under CACV 4062/2001