判決理由書筆誤更正？其他

### 案件基本資料 - 案件名稱：MARYO DEVELOPMENT LIMITED v TSANG YAU MAY 及其他人 - 法院：高等法院上訴法庭 (Court of Appeal, CA) - 法官：Barma JA 及 McWalters JA - 判決日期：2015年10月2日 ### 案情摘要 本案涉及兩宗已合併的訴訟，原告登彩發展有限公司 (MARYO DEVELOPMENT LIMITED) 針對曾幼 (TSANG YAU MAY)、曾廣勤 (TSANG KWONG KAN) 及王逸敏 (WONG YAT MAN SUNNY) 提出。案件的具體事實背景未在更正中詳細說明，但更正內容提及了第三被告及原告聘請不同專家評估翡翠價值，以及原告專家對翡翠零售和批發價值的評估。這暗示案件可能與翡翠的價值或相關交易有關。 ### 核心法律爭議 本更正文件主要處理判決書中的筆誤，並未直接闡述案件的核心法律爭議。更正內容涉及翡翠的估價方及估價結果，暗示原訴訟可能涉及財產糾紛或估價爭議，但具體法律問題未在此文件中明確提出。 ### 判決理由 本文件為判決理由書的更正，而非判決本身。因此，它沒有包含案件裁決理由 (ratio decidendi)。更正的目的是糾正原判決理由書中關於翡翠估價專家身份及估價結果的筆誤，確保記錄的準確性。 ### 引用案例與條文 本案未有特別引用 ### 裁決與命令 本文件僅為判決理由書的更正，而非最終判決或命令。它指示將原判決理由書第5段中的兩處錯誤進行修改，將「The 3rd defendant and the police」改為「The 3rd defendant and the plaintiff」，並將「The police expert」改為「The plaintiff’s expert」。 --- ### 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: MARYO DEVELOPMENT LIMITED v TSANG YAU MAY and Others - Court: Court of Appeal (CA) - Judge: Hon Barma JA and McWalters JA - Date of Judgment: 2 October 2015 ### Factual Background This case involves two consolidated actions brought by the plaintiff, MARYO DEVELOPMENT LIMITED, against Tsang Yau May, Tsang Kwong Kan, and Wong Yat Man Sunny. The specific factual background of the case is not detailed in this corrigendum. However, the corrigendum mentions that the 3rd defendant and the plaintiff engaged different experts to value jadeite, and the plaintiff's expert assessed the retail and wholesale value of the jadeite. This suggests the case likely involves a dispute over the value of jadeite or related transactions. ### Key Legal Issues This corrigendum primarily addresses clerical errors in the judgment and does not directly articulate the core legal issues of the case. The corrections pertain to the identity of the jadeite valuation expert and the valuation results, implying that the original litigation might have involved property disputes or valuation disagreements, but specific legal questions are not explicitly raised in this document. ### Ratio Decidendi This document is a corrigendum to the reasons for decision, not the judgment itself. Therefore, it does not contain the ratio decidendi. The purpose of the corrigendum is to correct clerical errors in the original reasons for decision regarding the identity of the jadeite valuation expert and the valuation results, ensuring accuracy of the record. ### Key Precedents & Statutes None prominently cited ### Decision & Orders This document is solely a corrigendum to the reasons for decision, not a final judgment or order. It directs two corrections to be made in paragraph 5 of the original reasons for decision: changing "The 3rd defendant and the police" to "The 3rd defendant and the plaintiff," and changing "The police expert" to "The plaintiff’s expert." --- ### 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.