判決書錯誤更正？申請獲批

### 案件基本資料 - 案件名稱：Fung Chun Man v Hospital Authority and another - 法院：高等法院原訟法庭 (Court of First Instance, CFI) - 法官：Hon Bharwaney J - 判決日期：2011年6月9日 ### 案情摘要 本案為一宗人身傷害訴訟 (personal injuries action)，原告人Fung Chun Man控告醫院管理局 (Hospital Authority) 為第一被告，以及律政司司長 (Secretary for Justice) 代表食物及衞生局局長 (Secretary for Food and Health) 為第二被告。本判決書為一份更正通知 (corrigendum)，旨在修正2011年6月24日發出的判決理由書中的錯誤。更正內容涉及判決理由書首頁的聆訊日期以及第22段第3行的文字。 ### 核心法律爭議 本案的核心法律爭議並非實體法問題，而是關於判決理由書中出現的排版錯誤和文字錯誤的更正。主要問題在於如何準確地修正已發出的判決理由書，以確保其內容的正確性與清晰度。 ### 判決理由 法官的裁斷理由是基於發現判決理由書中存在明顯的排版和文字錯誤，需要進行更正以確保記錄的準確性。更正的依據是為了糾正「Dates of Hearing」應為單數「Date of Hearing」，以及第22段第3行中的「but he does possess」應為「but he does not possess」。這類更正屬於法院固有的權力，旨在確保司法文書的完整性和正確性。 ### 引用案例與條文 本案未有特別引用 ### 裁決與命令 法庭發出更正通知，指示將2011年6月24日發出的判決理由書中的兩處錯誤進行修正。具體更正包括將首頁的「Dates of Hearing」改為「Date of Hearing」，以及將第22段第3行的「…but he does possess…」改為「…but he does not possess…」。 ### 判決啟示 本判決書為一份更正通知，強調了司法文書在發布後若發現錯誤，法院有權力且有責任進行修正，以確保判決理由的準確性。這類更正通常不影響案件的實質裁決，但對法律記錄的完整性至關重要。 --- ### 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: Fung Chun Man v Hospital Authority and another - Court: Court of First Instance (CFI) - Judge: Hon Bharwaney J - Date of Judgment: 9 June 2011 ### Factual Background This case is a personal injuries action brought by the plaintiff, Fung Chun Man, against the Hospital Authority as the 1st Defendant and the Secretary for Justice, on behalf of the Secretary for Food and Health, as the 2nd Defendant. The present document is a corrigendum issued to correct errors in the Reasons for Decision dated 24 June 2011. The corrections relate to the heading for the date of hearing on the front page and a specific phrase in paragraph 22, line 3 of the Reasons for Decision. ### Key Legal Issues The core legal issue in this case was not a substantive point of law but rather the procedural matter of correcting typographical and textual errors in a previously issued judgment. The main question was how to accurately amend the Reasons for Decision to ensure its correctness and clarity. ### Ratio Decidendi The judge's reasoning for the decision was based on the discovery of clear typographical and textual errors in the Reasons for Decision, necessitating correction to ensure the accuracy of the record. The corrections were made to change "Dates of Hearing" to the singular "Date of Hearing" on the front page and to amend "but he does possess" to "but he does not possess" in paragraph 22, line 3. Such corrections fall under the inherent power of the court to ensure the integrity and correctness of judicial documents. ### Key Precedents & Statutes None prominently cited ### Decision & Orders The court issued a corrigendum, directing two corrections to be made in the Reasons for Decision dated 24 June 2011. Specifically, the heading "Dates of Hearing" on the front page was to be changed to "Date of Hearing", and the phrase "…but he does possess…" in paragraph 22, line 3 was to be corrected to "…but he does not possess…". ### Key Takeaways This judgment, being a corrigendum, highlights the court's power and responsibility to correct errors in judicial documents after their issuance to ensure accuracy. Such corrections typically do not affect the substantive outcome of the case but are crucial for the integrity of legal records. --- ### 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.