Panco Industrial Holdings Ltd v. Ding Peng and Others

Read the full judgment text of CACV 35/2004 on BabelCite. This Court of Appeal judgment was delivered on 3 December 2004.

Cited by 2 cases · Cites 1 case

Case No.CACV 35/2004
Court
Court of Appeal
Date03 Dec 2004
Judge
Case Document
100%Judiciary

cacv 35/2004 & CACV 43/2004

CACV 35/2004

in the high court of the

hong kong special administrative region

court of appeal

civil appeal no. 35 of 2004

(on appeal from HCCL NO. 98 of 1995)

____________________

BETWEEN

  PANCO INDUSTRIAL HOLDINGS LIMITED Plaintiff
  and  
  DING PENG 1st Defendant
  ZHENG LIE LIE 2nd Defendant
  NG HIU NAM 3rd Defendant
  DENG LIU GEN 4th Defendant
  CHINA PROJECTS LIMITED 5th Defendant
  KENREY FINANCE LIMITED 6th Defendant

____________________

CACV 43/2004

in the high court of the

hong kong special administrative region

court of appeal

civil appeal no. 43 of 2004

(on appeal from HCA NO. 5370 of 1993)

____________________

BETWEEN

  PROSPERFIELD VENTURES LIMITED Plaintiff
  and  
  TRIPOLE TRADING LIMITED 1st Defendant
  ZHENG LIE LIE 2nd Defendant
  DING PENG 4th Defendant

____________________

Before: Hon Rogers VP, Le Pichon JA and Sakhrani J in Court

Dates of Hearing: 19-20 October 2004

Date of Handing Down Judgment: 3 December 2004

_________________________

C O R R I G E N D A

_________________________

Please note the following typos and an amendment in the judgment handed down on 3 December 2004:

Page 12:
   
(a)  The figure “23,128,594” at paragraph 21, line G should be “23,128,894”.
   
(b) The figure “2.308” at paragraph 23, line T should be “2.38”.
   
Page 13:
   
(a) The figure “23,128,594” at paragraph 24, line G should be “23,128,894”.
   
(b) The figure “5.807” at paragraph 24, line J should be “5.87”.
   
(c) The figure “17.25894” at paragraph 24, line K should be “17.258894”.
   
Page 14:
   
The figure “443.385” at paragraph 26, line C should be “44.3385”.
   
Paragraph 5 of the Schedule
 
The sentence “The 5th Defendant is entitled to the debt of HK$160,500,000 owed by SFC (formerly known as SCIC) to the 5th Defendant to the Plaintiff.” was amended to “The 5th Defendant do transfer to the Plaintiff the full benefit and advantage of the debt of $160,500,000 referred to in the agreement dated 17th June 1993 made between the Plaintiff and the 5th Defendant.”

Dated this 28th day of February 2005.

  (Kitty Leung)
Clerk to the Hon Mr Justice Rogers VP