To Kan Chi and and Others v. Pui Man Yau and Others

Read the full judgment text of on BabelCite..

Case No.
Court
Date
Judge
Case Document
100%Judiciary

HCMP000562M/1992

HCMP 562/92
HCMP 2084/94

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

MISCELLANEOUS PROCEEDINGS NOS.562 OF 1992 AND 2084 OF 1994

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

BETWEEN
TO KAN CHI (陶根池) 1st Plaintiffs
TO FUK TIM (陶福添)
and
TO KAM CHAU (陶鑑籌) (as managers of the) TO KA YI TSO (陶嘉儀祖)
TO CHEONG LAM(陶昌林) 2nd Plaintiffs
TO SIU LAM (陶兆林)
TO MEI LUN (陶美粦)
TO MAN HING (陶萬興)
and
TO MUK TAI (陶木泰) (as representatives of the To Clan)
AND
PUI MAN YAU (斐文有) alias SIK KWOK WAH (釋覺華) 1st Defendant
THE ATTORNEY GENERAL 2nd Defendant
CHAN YAT SAN (陳日新) 3rd Defendants
LAU WONG FAT (劉皇發)
and
HO SUN WING (何新榮)
THE SECRETARY FOR HOME AFFAIRS INCORPORATED 4th Defendant
PUI MAN YAU (斐文有) alias SIK KWOK WAH (釋覺華), the personal representative of TAT ON, deceased 5th Defendant

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

(Consolidated by the Order of the Honourable Mr Justice J Chan
dated 26 January 1996)

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

Corrigendum

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

Kindly note the following corrections in the judgment of the above-mentioned case delivered by the Honourable Mr. Justice Yam in Court on 26 November, 1998:-

Corrections in English judgment:

Chapter 1, p.2, line (J) The word "was" should read "had been"
Chapter 1, p.2, between line (M) and line (N) The word "were" should be deleted
Chapter 1, p.5, line (K) The word "up" should be inserted after "1936"
Chapter 2, p.2, between line (E) and line (F) The word "are" should read "were"
Chapter 2, p.3, between line (R) and line (S): The word "are" should read "were"
Chapter 2, p.4, between line (E) and line (F): The word "have" should read "had"
Chapter 2, p.4, between line (F) and line (G): The word "shall" should read "should"
Chapter 2, p.5, line (G): The word "his" should read "the"
Chapter 2, p.7, between line (F) and line (G): "It is the 1st Defendant acting" should read "The 1st Defendant acted"
Chapter 2, p.11,between line (R) : The word "goes" should read "went"
Chapter 3, p.2, between line (S) and line (T): The word "if" should read "should"
Chapter 7, p.1, between line (R) and line (S) : "熱善" should read "慈善"
Chapter 7, p.14, line (E) : The word "manger" should read "manager"
Chapter 8, p.12, line (O) : The word "manger" should read "manager"
Corrections in Chinese judgment:
第五章第23頁(M)行 : "香港管治權" 更正為 "香港新界管治權"
第七章第1頁(P)行: " 熱善" 更正為 "慈善"
第八章第9頁(P)行和(Q)之間: " 以" 更正為 "已"
Appendix(附件):
Appendix 3 (附件三): "熱善" 更正為 "慈善"
The character "熱善" should read "慈善"

Dated the 21st day of September, 2000

(Susanna Fong)(Miss)
Clerk to Hon. Yam, J.

To Kan Chi and and Others v. Pui Man Yau and Others [] | BabelCite