判決書文字錯誤的更正？其他

### 案件基本資料 - 案件名稱：LAM ROGERIO SOU FUNG (林秀峰) v TAN SOON GIN GEORGE (陳松青) - 法院：高等法院原訟法庭 (Court of First Instance, CFI) - 法官：Hon Chu J - 判決日期：2011年5月5日 ### 案情摘要 本案為一份判決書的更正通知。原判決日期為2011年5月5日，涉及原告LAM ROGERIO SOU FUNG（林秀峰）與被告TAN SOON GIN GEORGE（陳松青）之間的訴訟，以及被告提出的反申索。更正通知中列出了多項原判決書中的筆誤和排版錯誤，例如公司名稱的拼寫錯誤、法律術語的誤用、頁碼和行數的引用錯誤，以及句子結構和詞語的修正。這些更正旨在確保判決書的準確性和清晰度。 ### 核心法律爭議 本更正通知本身並未涉及實質的法律爭議，而是針對原判決書中的筆誤和排版錯誤進行修正。因此，沒有具體的法律問題或雙方論點需要分析。更正的目的是確保判決書的文字準確無誤，以正確反映法庭的裁決和理由。 ### 判決理由 本文件為判決書的更正通知，其目的僅為修正原判決書中的筆誤和排版錯誤，並非對案件實質法律問題的分析或裁決。因此，本更正通知不包含任何案件裁決理由 (ratio decidendi) 或法律原則的應用。其基礎是確保司法文書的準確性和清晰度。 ### 引用案例與條文 本案未有特別引用 ### 裁決與命令 本文件為一份更正通知，旨在修正高等法院原訟法庭於2011年5月5日作出的判決書中的多處筆誤和排版錯誤。更正內容包括公司名稱、法律術語、頁碼引用、句子結構及詞語等。此通知由朱法官的書記於2011年5月16日發出，以確保判決書的準確性。 ### 判決啟示 本更正通知強調了司法文書準確性的重要性，即使是細微的筆誤或排版錯誤也需要正式更正，以確保判決書的法律效力和清晰度。這對於法律專業人士在引用判例時，能夠依賴準確的文本至關重要。本通知本身不包含任何實質性的法律裁決或原則，僅為程序性修正。 --- ### 免責聲明 本摘要由人工智能自動生成，內容可能存在錯誤或遺漏，僅供參考，不構成法律意見。如需法律建議，請諮詢合資格律師。### Case Details - Case Name: LAM ROGERIO SOU FUNG (林秀峰) v TAN SOON GIN GEORGE (陳松青) - Court: Court of First Instance (CFI) - Judge: Hon Chu J - Date of Judgment: 5 May 2011 ### Factual Background This document is a corrigenda notice for a judgment originally delivered on 5 May 2011, concerning a case between the plaintiff LAM ROGERIO SOU FUNG and the defendant TAN SOON GIN GEORGE, including a counterclaim by the defendant. The corrigenda lists several typographical and clerical errors in the original judgment, such as misspellings of company names, incorrect legal terminology, erroneous page and line references, and corrections to sentence structure and wording. These corrections aim to ensure the accuracy and clarity of the judgment. ### Key Legal Issues This corrigenda notice itself does not address substantive legal issues but rather corrects typographical and clerical errors in the original judgment. Therefore, there are no specific legal questions or arguments from either party to analyze. The purpose of the corrigenda is to ensure the textual accuracy of the judgment, reflecting the court's decision and reasoning correctly. ### Ratio Decidendi This document is a corrigenda notice for a judgment, solely intended to correct typographical and clerical errors in the original judgment. It does not involve an analysis of substantive legal issues or a ruling on the merits of the case. Therefore, this corrigenda contains no ratio decidendi or application of legal principles. Its basis is to ensure the accuracy and clarity of judicial documents. ### Key Precedents & Statutes None prominently cited ### Decision & Orders This document is a corrigenda notice, issued to correct multiple typographical and clerical errors in the judgment delivered by the High Court, Court of First Instance, on 5 May 2011. The corrections include company names, legal terminology, page references, sentence structure, and wording. This notice was issued by the Clerk to the Honourable Madam Justice Chu on 16 May 2011 to ensure the accuracy of the judgment. ### Key Takeaways This corrigenda notice highlights the importance of accuracy in judicial documents. Even minor typographical or clerical errors require formal correction to ensure the legal efficacy and clarity of a judgment. This is crucial for legal professionals to rely on accurate text when citing precedents. The notice itself contains no substantive legal rulings or principles, serving purely as a procedural correction. --- ### Disclaimer This summary is AI-generated and may contain errors or omissions. It is for reference only and does not constitute legal advice. Please consult a qualified lawyer for professional legal advice.