Personal Representative of Tang Kin Man, Deceased v. Kwok Yu Ping and Others
Read the full judgment text of HCPI 378/2005 on BabelCite. This High Court CFI judgment.
1. Paragraph 21 should read “... From the papers it is quite obvious that the former solicitors for the Plaintiff, i.e., those who have ceased to act were not aware of the necessity of making the application within the validity period of the writ under Order 15 rule 6A(4) until the 3 rd Defendant made an application to strike out on 26 th May 2006. Obviously, it was a mistake on the part of the Plaintiff’s then legal advisors; ...”
Cites 1 case
|
HCPI 378/2005 IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE PERSONAL INJURIES ACTION NO. 378 OF 2005 ____________________ BETWEEN
____________________ Coram: Mr. Registrar C. Chan in Chambers Date of Hearing: 14th November 2006 Date of Handing Down: 30th November 2006 _______________ CORRIGENDA _______________ Please note that some corrections have been made to the Judgment and the revisions are as follows: 1.Paragraph 21 should read “... From the papers it is quite obvious that the former solicitors for the Plaintiff, i.e., those who have ceased to act were not aware of the necessity of making the application within the validity period of the writ under Order 15 rule 6A(4) until the 3rd Defendant made an application to strike out on 26th May 2006. Obviously, it was a mistake on the part of the Plaintiff’s then legal advisors; ...” 2.Paragraph 24(a) should read “As to the 3rd Defendant’s summons dated 26th May 2006 to strike out, I make no order for reasons aforesaid;” 3.Paragraph 24(d) should read “As to the Plaintiff’s application dated 21st October 2006, I make order in term of paragraphs 2, 3 and 4 of the Summons.” Dated this 18th December 2006
|
Cases cited in this judgment
Further hearings and rulings under HCPI 378/2005