15 Apr 2014
BRUCE JAMES STINSON v. GU MING GAO
- Citation
- BRUCE JAMES STINSON v. GU MING GAO
- Court
- Court of First Instance
- Case number
- HCA2352/2012
The application was dismissed because it sought a wholesale replacement of the earlier order, which is outside the corrective scope of Order 20 rule 11; reliance on Order 24 rule 17 required a fresh application and prior notice to the Plaintiff and could not properly be invoked belatedly in this proceeding; the court would not accept the invocation of inherent jurisdiction to achieve what the rules require be done by a fresh application.