IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE
HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION
COURT OF APPEAL
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 263 OF 2002
(ON APPEAL FROM HCA NO. 2788 OF 2001)
Coram: Hon Rogers VP, Le Pichon and Ma JJA in Court
Date of Hearing: 23 May 2003
Date of Decision: 23 May 2003
D E C I S I O N
Hon Rogers VP:
1. This is an application to amend an order under the Slip Rule. The basis of the opposition to it is that I am singularly unable toexpress myself coherently in a judgment.
2. I had assumed, when I had finished writing the judgment, that I had made it clear that the plaintiff should be able to reformulatethe Standard Corporation claim, if they could, to make it comprehensible, concise and precise.
3. When the order came to be drawn up, for reasons which can be explained rather lengthily, it is not altogether surprising that therewas a slip in drawing up the order and the order was not drawn up as it should have been, in terms which made it clear that the StandardCorporation could be revived, if the plaintiff could plead it in a proper manner.
4. I see absolutely no reason why the order should not be amended under the Slip Rule.
Hon Le Pichon JA:
5. I agree.
Hon Ma JA:
6. I agree.
Mr Godfrey Lam, instructed by Messrs Deacons, for the Plaintiff/Appellant
Mr Jonathan Harris, instructed by Messrs Linklaters, for the Defendant/Respondent