判決書筆誤的更正？申請獲批

### 案件基本資料 - 案件名稱：LEE SAI NAM v LI SHU CHUNG 及 另一人 - 法院：高等法院原訟法庭 (Court of First Instance, CFI) - 法官：Burrell 暫委高等法院原訟法庭法官 - 判決日期：2012年3月8日 ### 案情摘要 本案為一宗高等法院原訟法庭案件，涉及原告LEE SAI NAM與被告LI SHU CHUNG及LI JOSEPH SEE SUN之間的訴訟。判決書中包含一份更正啟事 (corrigendum)，指出在2012年3月8日頒布的判決書中，第2頁第(Q)行與第(R)行之間，第5段的年份「2009」應更正為「1999」。此更正啟事於2012年3月14日發出。 ### 核心法律爭議 本判決書主要處理的是對先前頒布判決書中的一個明顯錯誤進行更正。核心法律問題在於判決書中出現的筆誤，即年份「2009」應為「1999」的更正事宜。這不涉及實質性的法律爭議或雙方論點，而是對判決書內容的準確性進行修正。 ### 判決理由 本判決書的唯一目的和理由是發布一份更正啟事，以修正先前判決書中的一個筆誤。法官分析認為，判決書第2頁第(Q)行與第(R)行之間，第5段所提及的年份「2009」應為「1999」。此更正旨在確保判決書的準確性，並無涉及任何法律原則的應用或案件裁決理由 (ratio decidendi) 的闡述。 ### 引用案例與條文 本案未有特別引用 ### 裁決與命令 法庭頒布了一份更正啟事，指示將2012年3月8日頒布的判決書中，第2頁第(Q)行與第(R)行之間，第5段的年份「2009」更正為「1999」。此為對判決書內容的技術性修正。 ### 判決啟示 null --- ### 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: LEE SAI NAM v LI SHU CHUNG & Anor - Court: Court of First Instance (CFI) - Judge: Deputy High Court Judge Burrell - Date of Judgment: 8 March 2012 ### Factual Background This is a High Court Court of First Instance case involving a dispute between the plaintiff LEE SAI NAM and the defendants LI SHU CHUNG and LI JOSEPH SEE SUN. The judgment includes a corrigendum, noting that in the decision handed down on 8 March 2012, the year "2009" in paragraph 5, between line (Q) and line (R) on page 2, should be corrected to "1999". This corrigendum was issued on 14 March 2012. ### Key Legal Issues This judgment primarily addresses the correction of an obvious error in a previously issued judgment. The core legal issue concerns the rectification of a typographical error in the judgment, specifically that the year "2009" should have been "1999". This does not involve substantive legal disputes or arguments from the parties, but rather an amendment to ensure the accuracy of the judgment's content. ### Ratio Decidendi The sole purpose and reason for this judgment is to issue a corrigendum to correct a typographical error in a previous judgment. The judge determined that the year "2009" mentioned in paragraph 5, between line (Q) and line (R) on page 2 of the judgment, should be "1999". This correction aims to ensure the accuracy of the judgment and does not involve the application of any legal principles or the articulation of a ratio decidendi. ### Key Precedents & Statutes None prominently cited ### Decision & Orders The court issued a corrigendum, directing that in the decision handed down on 8 March 2012, the year "2009" in paragraph 5, between line (Q) and line (R) on page 2, be corrected to "1999". This constitutes a technical amendment to the judgment's content. ### Key Takeaways null --- ### 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.