判決書筆誤更正？申請獲批

### 案件基本資料 - 案件名稱：Re: LAU HIU TUEN, bankrupt - 法院：高等法院原訟法庭 (Court of First Instance, CFI) - 法官：林雲浩法官 (Hon G Lam J) - 判決日期：2015年8月20日 ### 案情摘要 本案涉及一宗破產程序，破產人為LAU HIU TUEN。法庭於2015年8月20日就此案作出判決，並於2015年8月26日發出更正令 (corrigendum)。更正令主要針對判決書第8頁第17段第11行的一個詞語，將「party’s overall expenses」更正為「family’s overall expenses」。這表明原判決可能涉及破產人家庭的整體開支評估，而更正旨在釐清該詞語的適用範圍。 ### 核心法律爭議 本案的核心法律爭議並非實體法問題，而是判決書中的文字錯誤更正。具體而言，爭議點在於判決書第8頁第17段第11行中「party’s overall expenses」一詞是否應更正為「family’s overall expenses」，以確保判決內容的準確性及符合法庭原意。 ### 判決理由 法官發出更正令，將判決書中的「party’s overall expenses」更正為「family’s overall expenses」。此舉是基於法庭有權更正判決書中的筆誤或明顯錯誤，以確保判決的準確性及清晰度。雖然更正令本身未詳細闡述更正理由，但其目的顯然是為了修正一個可能導致歧義的詞語，使其更符合案件背景和法庭意圖。 ### 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，將原判決書第8頁第17段第11行的「party’s overall expenses」更正為「family’s overall expenses」。此更正令由林雲浩法官的書記發出。 ### 判決啟示 本案的更正令提醒法律從業者，即使是最終判決書也可能存在筆誤，法庭有權力且有責任對此類錯誤進行更正，以確保判決的準確性和公正性。這也突顯了判決書細節的重要性，即使是單詞的差異也可能影響其解釋和適用。 --- ### 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: LAU HIU TUEN, bankrupt - Court: Court of First Instance (CFI) - Judge: Hon G Lam J - Date of Judgment: 20 August 2015 ### Factual Background This case concerns bankruptcy proceedings involving the bankrupt, LAU HIU TUEN. The court delivered its decision on 20 August 2015, and subsequently issued a corrigendum on 26 August 2015. The corrigendum specifically corrected a phrase on page 8, paragraph 17, line 11 of the original decision, changing "party’s overall expenses" to "family’s overall expenses". This indicates that the original judgment likely involved an assessment of the bankrupt's family's overall expenses, and the correction aimed to clarify the scope of that term. ### Key Legal Issues The core legal issue in this case was not a substantive point of law, but rather the correction of a textual error within the judgment itself. Specifically, the dispute centered on whether the phrase "party’s overall expenses" on page 8, paragraph 17, line 11 of the judgment should be corrected to "family’s overall expenses" to ensure the accuracy and alignment of the judgment with the court's original intent. ### Ratio Decidendi The judge issued a corrigendum to replace "party’s overall expenses" with "family’s overall expenses" in the judgment. This action is based on the court's inherent power to correct clerical errors or obvious mistakes in its judgments to ensure accuracy and clarity. While the corrigendum itself does not elaborate on the reasons for the correction, its purpose is clearly to rectify a potentially ambiguous phrase to better reflect the case context and the court's intention. ### Key Precedents & Statutes None prominently cited. ### Decision & Orders The court issued a corrigendum, correcting "party’s overall expenses" to "family’s overall expenses" on page 8, paragraph 17, line 11 of the original decision. This corrigendum was issued by the Clerk to Hon G. Lam J. ### Key Takeaways This corrigendum serves as a reminder to legal practitioners that even final judgments can contain clerical errors. Courts possess the power and responsibility to correct such errors to ensure the accuracy and fairness of their decisions. It also highlights the importance of precision in judgment drafting, as even a single word change can impact interpretation and application. --- ### 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.