Law Fat Kam t/a Kam Kee Waste Paper v. The Director of Lands
Read the full judgment text of LDMT 1/2004 on BabelCite. This LDMT judgment was delivered on 12 July 2006.
1. On page 12 of the Decision, at the last line: the total number of hours for KC/JC should be 7.3 hours instead of 2.8 hours;
Cites 1 case
|
LDMT 1/2004 IN THE LANDS TRIBUNAL OF THE HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION MTR Ordinance Application No. 1 of 2004 BETWEEN
Coram: Mr. W. K. LO, Member of the Lands Tribunal Date of Hearing: 7 June 2006 Date of Handing down Decision: 12 July 2006 ______________________ C O R R I G E N D A ______________________ 1.On page 12 of the Decision, at the last line: the total number of hours for KC/JC should be 7.3 hours instead of 2.8 hours; 2.On page 12 of the Decision, at the last line: the total remuneration for KC/JC should be $5,475 instead of $2,100; 3.On page 13 of the Decision, at the first line: the Sub-total remuneration for all should be $155,895 instead of $152,520; 4.On page 13 of the Decision, at the 3rd line: the total claim for professional remuneration and disbursement should be $157,895 instead of $154,520; 5.On page 13 of the Decision, at the 3rd line of paragraph 25: the effective date should be from 1 May 1998 instead of 1 May 8250; 6.On page 18 of the Decision, at the 3rd line of paragraph 36: the total amount of professional remuneration should be $155,895 instead of $152,520; 7.On page 18 of the Decision, the first sentence of paragraph 37 should read: The Respondent do pay the Applicant professional remuneration (including disbursement) reasonably incurred in connection with the claim herein up to 4 February 2005, in the sum of $157,895; 8.On page 18 of the Decision, at the 3rd lines of paragraph 37: the last word “a” should be replaced by “an”; 9.On Appendix 2 of the Decision, at page 5: the first column of Total (“A”) should be 7.3 instead of 2.8; 10.On Appendix 2 of the Decision, at page 5: the first column of Sub-total of costs or remuneration of each person handling the work (“A” x “B”) should be $5,475 instead of $2,100; and 11.On Appendix 2 of the Decision, at page 5: the Grand Total should be $155,895 instead of $152,520.
Dated this the 26th day of July 2006 |
Cases cited in this judgment
Further hearings and rulings under LDMT 1/2004