判決書筆誤的更正？申請獲批

### 案件基本資料 - 案件名稱：RE THE PRUDENTIAL ENTERPRISES LTD - 法院：高等法院原訟法庭 (Court of First Instance, CFI) - 法官：朱芬齡法官 (Hon Chu J) - 判決日期：2003年8月19日 ### 案情摘要 本案涉及多宗訴訟，包括一宗公司清盤呈請 (Companies Winding-Up Petition) (HCCW594/1999) 及兩宗高等法院民事訴訟 (HCA1240/2001及HCA4225/2001)。清盤呈請針對THE PRUDENTIAL ENTERPRISES, LIMITED (第一被告) 提出。民事訴訟的原告為多名人士，包括Lee Tak Yan、Lee Kim等，被告則包括第一被告公司及多名個人，如Samuel Tak Lee。本判決為一份更正令 (Corrigenda)，旨在修正原判決中的筆誤和日期。 ### 核心法律爭議 本判決的核心法律爭議並非實體法問題，而是關於原判決中多處筆誤的更正。主要涉及清盤呈請的案件編號、提交建議的截止日期、特定日期的修正，以及在段落末尾添加提交文件的截止日期。 ### 判決理由 本判決為一份更正令，其理據在於修正原判決中的明顯錯誤，以確保判決的準確性和清晰度。法官根據其固有權力 (inherent power) 發出此類更正令，以糾正書寫錯誤或遺漏，而非重新審理案件的實質內容。這類更正旨在避免因技術性錯誤而引起的混淆或不便。 ### 引用案例與條文 本案未有特別引用 ### 裁決與命令 法庭發出更正令，修正了原判決中的五處錯誤。主要更正包括將清盤呈請的案件編號從「HCCW592/1999」改為「HCCW594/1999」，並在多處加入或修正了提交文件的截止日期，例如在「if so advised」後加入「on or before 28 September 2003」。 ### 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: RE THE PRUDENTIAL ENTERPRISES LTD - Court: Court of First Instance (CFI) - Judge: Hon Chu J - Date of Judgment: 19 August 2003 ### Factual Background This case involves multiple proceedings, including a Companies Winding-Up Petition (HCCW594/1999) and two High Court Actions (HCA1240/2001 and HCA4225/2001). The winding-up petition was filed against THE PRUDENTIAL ENTERPRISES, LIMITED (the 1st Defendant). The plaintiffs in the civil actions included various individuals such as Lee Tak Yan and Lee Kim, while the defendants included the 1st Defendant company and several individuals like Samuel Tak Lee. This judgment is a Corrigenda, issued to correct clerical errors and dates in the original judgment. ### Key Legal Issues The core legal issues in this judgment were not substantive legal questions but rather the correction of several clerical errors in the original judgment. These primarily concerned the correct action number for the winding-up petition, the deadline for submitting advice, the correction of specific dates, and the addition of submission deadlines at the end of certain paragraphs. ### Ratio Decidendi This judgment is a Corrigenda, and its rationale is to rectify obvious errors in the original judgment to ensure its accuracy and clarity. The judge exercised her inherent power to issue such an order to correct clerical mistakes or omissions, rather than re-adjudicating the substantive merits of the case. These corrections aim to prevent confusion or inconvenience arising from technical inaccuracies. ### Key Precedents & Statutes None prominently cited ### Decision & Orders The court issued a Corrigenda, correcting five errors in the original judgment. Key corrections included changing the winding-up petition's action number from "HCCW592/1999" to "HCCW594/1999", and adding or amending submission deadlines in several places, such as inserting "on or before 28 September 2003" after "if so advised". ### 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.