CITATION: Griffith v John Fairfax Publications (No. 2) [2004] NSWCA 388 HEARING DATE(S): On papers JUDGMENT DATE:
27 October 2004JUDGMENT OF: Sheller JA; Tobias JA; Young CJ in Eq DECISION: That paragraph 56(g) of the judgment of 20 October 2004 be varied by deleting therefrom the words "first and second respondents" and inserting in lieu the word "appellants". CATCHWORDS: JUDGMENTS - Error in orders - varying order LEGISLATION CITED: Supreme Court Rules 1970 CASES CITED: None PARTIES :
Jeremy Norman Griffith
Foundation for Humanity's Adulthood
Timothy John Macartney-Snape
The Persons Named in Schedule "A" to the Notice of Appeal with Appointment
John Fairfax Publications Pty Limited
David Milikan
William Anthony McClelland t/as "Cultaware"
FILE NUMBER(S): CA 40188/04 COUNSEL: A: K P Smark
1R & 2R: R Lancaster / N Owens
R3: P MenadueSOLICITORS: A: Schweizer Kobras, Sydney
1R & 2R: Freehills, Sydney
3R: William Anthony McClelland
LOWER COURTJURISDICTION: Supreme Court LOWER COURT FILE NUMBER(S): SC 20301/01 LOWER COURT
JUDICIAL OFFICER :Levine J
CA 40188/04
SC 20301/01Wednesday 26 October 2004SHELLER JA
TOBIAS JA
YOUNG CJ in Eq
1 THE COURT: Since delivering judgment in this matter on 20 October 2004, counsel for the appellants and the solicitor for the first and second respondents have brought to our attention an error in [56(g)] of the judgment wherein an order was made that the first and second respondents pay the costs of the appeal with respect to the first matter complained of.
2 The appellants and the first and second respondents agree that this is in error as the appellants were unsuccessful with respect to the first matter complained of as a consequence whereof it is they who should pay the costs of the appeal with respect to that matter.
3 The Court has been invited by those parties to correct the mistake pursuant to Part 20 r 10(1) of the Supreme Court Rules 1970 and to do so without any further hearing.
4 It is clear that an error has been made in the order set forth in [56(g)] of the judgment and that it should be corrected in accordance with the request of the appellants counsel and the first and second respondents' solicitor. Accordingly, the Court orders that [56(g)] of the judgment of 20 October 2004 be varied by deleting therefrom the words "first and second respondents" and inserting in lieu the word "appellants".
Last Modified: 11/02/2004
- AGLC
- Griffith v John Fairfax Publications (No. 2) [2004] NSWCA 388
- Case
- [2004] NSWCA 388
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The central legal issue before the court was whether to permit an amendment to the orders previously made. Specifically, the court had to determine if the existing wording of paragraph 56(g) accurately reflected the court's intention and if the proposed alteration was necessary to give effect to that intention.
The court, comprising Sheller and Tobias JJA and Young CJ in Eq, acceded to the application. The reasoning was that the original wording of paragraph 56(g) contained a manifest error, mistakenly referring to the "first and second respondents" when the intention was to refer to the "appellants". The court applied the principle that it has the power to correct clerical mistakes or errors arising from an accidental slip or omission in its judgments or orders to ensure they accurately reflect the court's determination.
Accordingly, the court ordered that paragraph 56(g) of the judgment of 20 October 2004 be varied by deleting the words "first and second respondents" and inserting in lieu the word "appellants".
Orders
Orders of the court
That paragraph 56(g) of the judgment of 20 October 2004 be varied by deleting therefrom the words "first and second respondents" and inserting in lieu the word "appellants".
Background
Background to the litigation
Full text does not contain this section.
Evidence
Evidence Before The Court
Full text does not contain this section.
Decision
Reasons for decision
Full text does not contain this section.
Ratio Decidendi
Legal Principle Established
Full text does not contain this section.