Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Clerical error

Legal area

Court

14 Mar 2022

RE YAU, SUNG KEUNG late of Unit A, Ground Floor, 34A Tseng Lam Shue Village, Sai Kung, New Territories, Married Man, deceased (“the Deceased”)

Citation

[2022] HKCFI 749
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAG13744/2019

The court found the Deceased intended specific physical parts (Block A to the Mother and Block B to the Daughter). The Rectification Order that converted those intended physical blocks into equal half-shares effectively rewrote the will rather than correcting clerical errors and therefore could not stand; the Rectification Order was set aside though procedural irregularity in failing to exhibit beneficiary comments was waived.
24 Mar 2021

吳對余及另一人

Citation

[2021] HKCA 383
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CAMP65/2020

The Court refused leave to appeal because the application was filed significantly late without explanation, the applicant failed to show a clerical error or accidental slip in the 2009 order (the evidence relied on was insufficient and the change sought would alter substantive obligations), and therefore there was no real prospect of success to justify granting out‑of‑time leave.
28 May 2010

LEUNGPO CHU v. HO HUNG YING DONNA AND OTHERS

Citation

LEUNGPO CHU v. HO HUNG YING DONNA AND OTHERS
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP961/2010

The evidence overwhelmingly established the Deceased intended to benefit the Plaintiff and made a clerical error in the beneficiary's name; therefore s23A authorized rectification substituting "Leung Po Chiu" with "Leung Po Chu"; cross-examination was unnecessary and refused as futile; costs were ordered to be paid out of the estate with specified gross reductions because the administratrices did not act so unreasonably as to forfeit estate indemnity but procedural conduct warranted cost adjustments.
3 Sept 2009

RE SOCOMEC KEDU HONG KONG LTD

Citation

RE SOCOMEC KEDU HONG KONG LTD
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP1164/2009

The petition was granted because the reduction of capital was a bona fide correction of a clerical error, the shareholders unanimously consented, procedural safeguards were observed or properly dispensed with, there was no prejudice to creditors, and the directors confirmed the remaining paid-up capital was adequate for the company's needs.
22 May 2006

FORMOSA TAFFETA (HK) CO LTD v. BOTH BASE INTERNATIONAL LTD

Citation

FORMOSA TAFFETA (HK) CO LTD v. BOTH BASE INTERNATIONAL LTD
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ3395/2002

The application for summary/final judgment was dismissed because there existed a genuine triable issue as to how and why the official receipt for HK$294,269.27 was issued when that sum was not shown to have been received; the plaintiff failed to provide satisfactory explanation or evidence for the anomalous receipt and for the assertion that alleged deletion was made by the defendant's staff, therefore summary determination was not appropriate.
8 Sept 1999

CHEN HUNG LIEN v. TSE SUI LUEN

Citation

CHEN HUNG LIEN v. TSE SUI LUEN
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA4671/1999

On true construction the Deeds did not require the calendar date to be specified in the Option Notice; the Served Notices contained an obvious clerical error but unambiguously invoked the contractual 14th day completion date; applying Mannai the notices are valid and the Plaintiffs complied with the conditions to exercise the Option, entitling them to specific performance.

Hong Kong Case Law

RE YAU, SUNG KEUNG late of Unit A, Ground Floor, 34A Tseng Lam Shue Village, Sai Kung, New Territories, Married Man, deceased (“the Deceased”)

吳 對 余及另一人

LEUNGPO CHU v. HO HUNG YING DONNA AND OTHERS

RE SOCOMEC KEDU HONG KONG LTD

FORMOSA TAFFETA (HK) CO LTD v. BOTH BASE INTERNATIONAL LTD

CHEN HUNG LIEN v. TSE SUI LUEN

吳對余及另一人