判決書筆誤的更正？其他

### 案件基本資料 - 案件名稱：WANG DIN SHIN v NINA KUNG alias NINA T.H. WANG - 法院：高等法院上訴法庭 (Court of Appeal, CA) - 法官：楊振權法官、袁家寧法官、黃志明法官 - 判決日期：2004年6月28日 ### 案情摘要 本案為一宗上訴案件，涉及高等法院原訟法庭於1999年HCA P8號案件的判決。上訴法庭於2003年9月29日至11月5日期間進行聆訊，並於2004年6月28日作出判決。判決後，法庭於2004年7月7日發出更正令，修正判決書中的兩處筆誤，包括將第55頁第293段中的「leading counsel for the Wife」更正為「leading counsel for the Father」，以及將第159頁第821段中的「certainly des not」更正為「certainly does not」。 ### 核心法律爭議 本案的核心法律爭議在於原訟法庭判決書中的筆誤是否需要更正，以及這些筆誤對判決的實質內容是否有影響。上訴人（Nina Kung）與答辯人（Wang Din Shin）之間的原訟案件涉及何種爭議，以及這些更正是否會影響雙方的權利。 ### 判決理由 上訴法庭發出更正令，修正了判決書中的兩處筆誤。第一處是將第55頁第293段中的「leading counsel for the Wife」更正為「leading counsel for the Father」，這表明原判決書誤將一方的代表律師身份寫錯。第二處是將第159頁第821段中的「certainly des not」更正為「certainly does not」，這是一個明顯的拼寫錯誤。這些更正屬於《高等法院規則》第20號命令第11條（Order 20 rule 11）下的「案頭錯誤」（slip rule），旨在修正判決書中的筆誤或遺漏，以確保判決書能準確反映法庭的意圖。 ### 引用案例與條文 本案未有特別引用 ### 裁決與命令 上訴法庭發出更正令，修正了原判決書中的兩處筆誤。這些更正旨在確保判決書的準確性，並未改變判決的實質內容。更正令由楊振權法官的書記李嘉敏小姐於2004年7月7日發出。 ### 判決啟示 本案的更正令強調了法庭在判決書中出現筆誤時，可根據「案頭錯誤」原則（slip rule）進行修正。這確保了司法文書的準確性和完整性，避免因技術性錯誤而影響判決的清晰度或執行。此類更正通常不影響案件的實質結果，但對法律文件的嚴謹性至關重要。 --- ### 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: WANG DIN SHIN v NINA KUNG alias NINA T.H. WANG - Court: Court of Appeal (CA) - Judge: Hon Yeung JA, Yuen JA & Waung J - Date of Judgment: 28 June 2004 ### Factual Background This is an appeal case concerning a judgment from the Court of First Instance, HCA P8 of 1999. The Court of Appeal heard the case from 29 September to 5 November 2003 and delivered its judgment on 28 June 2004. Following the judgment, a corrigendum was issued on 7 July 2004 to amend two clerical errors in the judgment. Specifically, "leading counsel for the Wife" on page 55, paragraph 293 was corrected to "leading counsel for the Father," and "certainly des not" on page 159, paragraph 821 was corrected to "certainly does not." ### Key Legal Issues The core legal issues in this case revolved around whether clerical errors in the Court of First Instance's judgment required correction, and if these errors had any substantive impact on the judgment's content. The original dispute between the Appellant (Nina Kung) and the Respondent (Wang Din Shin) and how these corrections might affect their rights were also implicitly at stake. ### Ratio Decidendi The Court of Appeal issued a corrigendum to rectify two clerical errors in the judgment. The first correction changed "leading counsel for the Wife" to "leading counsel for the Father" in paragraph 293 on page 55, indicating an incorrect designation of counsel. The second corrected "certainly des not" to "certainly does not" in paragraph 821 on page 159, which was a clear typographical error. These corrections fall under the "slip rule" as per Order 20 rule 11 of the Rules of the High Court, which allows for the amendment of judgments to correct accidental slips or omissions to accurately reflect the court's intention. ### Key Precedents & Statutes None prominently cited ### Decision & Orders The Court of Appeal issued a corrigendum to amend two clerical errors in the original judgment. These corrections were made to ensure the accuracy of the judgment and did not alter its substantive content. The corrigendum was issued by Ms. Carmen Lee, Clerk to Hon Yeung JA, on 7 July 2004. ### Key Takeaways This corrigendum highlights the court's power to correct clerical errors in judgments under the "slip rule." This mechanism ensures the accuracy and integrity of judicial documents, preventing technical errors from affecting the clarity or enforceability of a judgment. Such corrections typically do not impact the substantive outcome of a case but are crucial for the precision 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.