Shenzhen Tian He Jian Sang Electronic Holdings Co Ltd v. Hong Kong Jian Sang Electronics (Group) Ltd and Another

Read the full judgment text of HCA 1587/2007 on BabelCite. This High Court CFI judgment was delivered on 9 May 2008.

Cites 1 case

Case No.HCA 1587/2007
Court
High Court CFI
Date09 May 2008
Judge
Case Document
100%Judiciary

HCA 1587/2007

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

ACTION NO. 1587 OF 2007

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

BETWEEN    
  深圳天河建生電子股份有限公司
 (Shenzhen Tian He Jian Sang Electronic Holdings
Company Limited)
Plaintiff
  and  
  香港建生電子(集團)有限公司
 (Hong Kong Jian Sang Electronics (Group) Limited)
1st Defendant
     
  億都(國際控股)有限公司
(Yeebo (International Holdings) Limited)
2nd Defendant

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

Before:  Hon Fung J in Court

Date of Hearing: 31 March and 2 April 2008

Date of Judgment: 9 May 2008

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

C O R R I G E N D U M

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

1.Paragraph 6,  page 3:-

‘In October 1999, the plaintiff applied to the Guangdong Court for a retrial, and execution of the Appeal Judgment was stayed pending the application.’  should be changed to ‘In October 1999, the2nd defendant applied to the Guangdong Court for a retrial, and execution of the Appeal Judgment was stayed pending the application.’ 

2.Paragraph 7,  page 3:-

‘On 30 August 2000, the Guangdong Court dismissed the application for retrial by the plaintiff (“Review Judgment”).’ should be changed to ‘On 30 August 2000, the Guangdong Court dismissed the application for retrial by the 2nd defendant (“Review Judgment”).’

3.Paragraph 11,  page 3:-

‘……the Appeal Judgment and the Review Judgment under sections 24 and 24 of the Limitation Ordinance (Cap. 347). ’ should be changed to ‘……the Appeal Judgment and the Review Judgment under sections 23 and 24 of the Limitation Ordinance (Cap. 347). ’

4.Paragraph 12,  page 4:-

‘The plaintiff’s lawyer alleged that the 2nd defendant had three wholly owned subsidiaries in the Mainland and did not satisfy the debt even was able to do so.’ should be changed to ‘The plaintiff’s lawyer alleged that the 2nd defendant had three wholly owned subsidiaries in the Mainland and did not satisfy the debt even when able to do so.’

Dated the 22nd day of July 2008

    Kitty Lam
Clerk to Hon. Fung, J