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 and LI JOSEPH SEE SUN - 法院：高等法院原訟法庭 (Court of First Instance, CFI) - 法官：Marlene Ng 暫委高等法院原訟法庭法官 - 判決日期：2014年1月10日 ### 案情摘要 本案為一宗民事訴訟，涉及原告LEE SAI NAM與兩名被告LI SHU CHUNG及LI JOSEPH SEE SUN之間的糾紛。判決書中提及的更正通知，是關於原訟法庭暫委法官Marlene Ng於2014年1月10日作出的判決（3）中的一項筆誤。該更正將判決書第41頁第73段第1行的「KJ Solicitors」修正為「FS Solicitors」。此更正本身並未改變案件的實質判決或法律分析，僅為文書上的修正。 ### 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一個筆誤進行修正。因此，本更正通知的關鍵法律問題是如何確保法庭文件的準確性及更正程序。 ### 判決理由 本更正通知的理據 (ratio decidendi) 僅在於修正原判決書中的一個筆誤，以確保法庭記錄的準確性。法官並未在更正通知中提供新的法律分析或原則，而是基於對事實錯誤的確認進行修正。這反映了法庭對其發布文件的準確性要求。 ### 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，將2014年1月10日判決書第41頁第73段第1行的「KJ Solicitors」修正為「FS Solicitors」。此更正由暫委高等法院原訟法庭法官Marlene Ng的書記KAM Kwong-lam於2014年2月28日發出。 ### 判決啟示 本判決為一項更正通知，其重要性在於強調法庭文件準確性的重要性。儘管更正內容僅為律師事務所名稱的筆誤，但法庭仍會發出正式通知以確保記錄無誤，這對法律實踐中的文書處理具有指導意義。此類更正不影響案件的實質判決。 --- ### 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 and LI JOSEPH SEE SUN - Court: Court of First Instance (CFI) - Judge: Deputy High Court Judge Marlene Ng - Date of Judgment: 10 January 2014 ### Factual Background This is a civil action between the plaintiff, LEE SAI NAM, and the two defendants, LI SHU CHUNG and LI JOSEPH SEE SUN. The corrigendum notice refers to a clerical error in Decision (3) issued by Deputy High Court Judge Marlene Ng on 10 January 2014. The correction amends "KJ Solicitors" to "FS Solicitors" on page 41, paragraph 73, line 1 of the judgment. This correction itself does not alter the substantive judgment or legal analysis of the case, serving purely as a clerical amendment. ### Key Legal Issues This corrigendum notice does not involve substantive legal issues but rather addresses a clerical error in the original judgment. Therefore, the key legal issue of this corrigendum notice is how to ensure the accuracy of court documents and the procedure for correction. ### Ratio Decidendi The ratio decidendi of this corrigendum notice is solely to correct a clerical error in the original judgment to ensure the accuracy of court records. The judge did not provide new legal analysis or principles in the corrigendum notice but made the correction based on the identification of a factual error. This reflects the court's requirement for accuracy in its issued documents. ### Key Precedents & Statutes None prominently cited ### Decision & Orders The court issued a corrigendum notice to amend "KJ Solicitors" to "FS Solicitors" on page 41, paragraph 73, line 1 of the judgment dated 10 January 2014. This correction was issued by KAM Kwong-lam, Clerk to Deputy High Court Judge Marlene Ng, on 28 February 2014. ### Key Takeaways This judgment is a corrigendum notice, highlighting the importance of accuracy in court documents. Although the correction was merely a clerical error in a solicitor's firm name, the court still issued a formal notice to ensure accurate records. This provides guidance for document handling in legal practice. Such corrections do not affect the substantive judgment of the case. --- ### 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.