Making complete and correct judgments is one of the most basic requirements of the judiciary. However, judges may make mistakes in their judgments, and there must be follow-up issues as to how to provide remedies for the parties. Mistakes made by judges may take various forms, including substantial errors, such as unclear fact-finding conclusion and incorrect application of law, and formal errors such as wrong calculation and wrong writing (clerical errors), as well as even the omission of making judgments, i.e. omission of claims raised by the claimants. Therefore, it is essential to establish different remedy approaches depending on different types and natures of these mistakes. While much attention has been paid to the procedural remedies which are aimed at substantial errors, more still needs to be done to study the latter two types of errors, i.e. clerical errors and omitted claims. As far as obvious errors are concerned in this chapter, this basic procedural issue has not been given due importance. In practice, deficiencies can be often detected in judicial decisions. In order to clarify the application of correction rulings and avoid the abuse of the rules in practice, it is necessary to elaborate and perfect the system by more clearly interpreting the current rules. Considering the comparative experience of common law system and civil law system as well as the judicial practice in China, this chapter deems that the current rules for correction of clerical errors shall be divided into two systems: those for correction of obvious errors and those for correction of errors in the alleged facts of judgments. The former is much more significant and should be the focus of the interpretative research. It is to be considered that under German law, the correction of formal errors aims at both obvious errors and errors in the alleged facts of judgments. As for the correction procedure, the former can be corrected sua sponte by the original court making the judgment or the appellate court at any time, while the latter can merely be corrected by the original court upon application of the party within a certain time limit. Taking the second type of formal errors into account is consistent with the general structure of civil judgments in chapter 3. Similar to the German system, American and Japanese law also provide for the correction of judgment’s errors. In China, when correcting obvious errors, the court shall consider the interpretation of the judge’s true intention, the standard of obviousness and the parties’ needs for the correction. The applicable scope of the correction ruling can be clarified by the collected real cases in China’s practice. For the sake of judicial practical need and efficiency, the scope of the judicial authority of making corrections should be expanded and correction may be initiated at any time by the court’s own initiative, while the appellate judge may also rectify the errors within appellate proceedings. As for the errors in the alleged facts of judgments which is suggested by this contribution de lege ferenda, merely the original judges who made the original judgment can initiate the correction upon the application of the party according to the original situation, since such correction just refers to the correction of the record in the past.

Correction of Obvious Errors at First Instance

章节
发表日期：

2025年

查看全文

Zhixun Cao

摘要

Making complete and correct judgments is one of the most basic requirements of the judiciary. However, judges may make mistakes in their judgments, and there must be follow-up issues as to how to provide remedies for the parties. Mistakes made by judges may take various forms, including substantial errors, such as unclear fact-finding conclusion and incorrect application of law, and formal errors such as wrong calculation and wrong writing (clerical errors), as well as even the omission of making judgments, i.e. omission of claims raised by the claimants. Therefore, it is essential to establish different remedy approaches depending on different types and natures of these mistakes. While much attention has been paid to the procedural remedies which are aimed at substantial errors, more still needs to be done to study the latter two types of errors, i.e. clerical errors and omitted claims. As far as obvious errors are concerned in this chapter, this basic procedural issue has not been given due importance. In practice, deficiencies can be often detected in judicial decisions. In order to clarify the application of correction rulings and avoid the abuse of the rules in practice, it is necessary to elaborate and perfect the system by more clearly interpreting the current rules. Considering the comparative experience of common law system and civil law system as well as the judicial practice in China, this chapter deems that the current rules for correction of clerical errors shall be divided into two systems: those for correction of obvious errors and those for correction of errors in the alleged facts of judgments. The former is much more significant and should be the focus of the interpretative research. It is to be considered that under German law, the correction of formal errors aims at both obvious errors and errors in the alleged facts of judgments. As for the correction procedure, the former can be corrected sua sponte by the original court making the judgment or the appellate court at any time, while the latter can merely be corrected by the original court upon application of the party within a certain time limit. Taking the second type of formal errors into account is consistent with the general structure of civil judgments in chapter 3. Similar to the German system, American and Japanese law also provide for the correction of judgment’s errors. In China, when correcting obvious errors, the court shall consider the interpretation of the judge’s true intention, the standard of obviousness and the parties’ needs for the correction. The applicable scope of the correction ruling can be clarified by the collected real cases in China’s practice. For the sake of judicial practical need and efficiency, the scope of the judicial authority of making corrections should be expanded and correction may be initiated at any time by the court’s own initiative, while the appellate judge may also rectify the errors within appellate proceedings. As for the errors in the alleged facts of judgments which is suggested by this contribution de lege ferenda, merely the original judges who made the original judgment can initiate the correction upon the application of the party according to the original situation, since such correction just refers to the correction of the record in the past.