判決書筆誤更正？其他

### 案件基本資料 - 案件名稱：NPYJ v SMRC - 法院：區域法院 (District Court) - 法官：陳靜芬法官 (Her Honour Judge Grace Chan) - 判決日期：2021年3月10日 ### 案情摘要 本案為一宗婚姻訴訟，涉及原告NPYJ與被告SMRC。判決書中並未詳細闡述具體事實背景，但從更正通知 (corrigendum) 可知，判決書第57段第3行原有的「精神科醫生 (psychiatrist)」一詞被更正為「臨床心理學家 (clinical psychologist)」。這暗示案件可能涉及心理健康評估或相關專業意見，但具體爭議點未在更正通知中說明。 ### 核心法律爭議 本更正通知本身並未直接涉及任何實質法律爭議。其主要目的僅為修正判決書中的筆誤，將「精神科醫生」更正為「臨床心理學家」。因此，本通知未有提出任何法律論點或爭議。 ### 判決理由 本文件為判決書的更正通知，其目的僅為修正判決書中的筆誤，而非對案件的法律爭議作出分析或裁決。因此，本更正通知不包含任何案件裁決理由 (ratio decidendi)。 ### 引用案例與條文 本案未有特別引用 ### 裁決與命令 本文件為判決書的更正通知，其唯一指令是將判決書第57段第3行的「精神科醫生」一詞更正為「臨床心理學家」。 ### 判決啟示 本更正通知提醒法律文件在發布後仍可能需要修正，以確保其準確性。儘管這只是一個小錯誤，但對於涉及專業人士身份的描述，其準確性至關重要，尤其是在可能涉及專業意見或評估的案件中。這也突顯了判決書校對的重要性。 --- ### 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: NPYJ v SMRC - Court: District Court - Judge: Her Honour Judge Grace Chan - Date of Judgment: 10 March 2021 ### Factual Background This case is a matrimonial cause between the Petitioner NPYJ and the Respondent SMRC. The judgment itself does not detail the specific factual background. However, a corrigendum indicates that a typographical error in the judgment, specifically in the 3rd line of paragraph 57 on page 23, where the word "psychiatrist" was used, has been amended to "clinical psychologist". This suggests the case may have involved mental health assessments or related professional opinions, though the specific issues in dispute are not elaborated in the corrigendum. ### Key Legal Issues This corrigendum itself does not address any substantive legal issues. Its primary purpose is solely to correct a typographical error in the judgment, changing "psychiatrist" to "clinical psychologist". Therefore, no legal arguments or disputes are presented in this notice. ### Ratio Decidendi This document is a corrigendum to a judgment, intended solely to correct a clerical error in the judgment, rather than to analyze or rule on the legal issues of the case. As such, this corrigendum contains no ratio decidendi. ### Key Precedents & Statutes None prominently cited ### Decision & Orders This document is a corrigendum to a judgment, and its sole order is to amend the word "psychiatrist" to "clinical psychologist" in the 3rd line of paragraph 57 of the judgment. ### Key Takeaways This corrigendum serves as a reminder that legal documents may require amendments even after issuance to ensure accuracy. Although a minor error, the precise description of a professional's identity is crucial, especially in cases potentially involving expert opinions or assessments. This also highlights the importance of proofreading judgments. --- ### 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.