Lansom v Lansom (No 2)

Case [2018] NSWSC 835


Supreme Court


New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Lansom v Lansom (No 2) [2018] NSWSC 835
Hearing dates: In Chambers
Date of orders: 06 June 2018
Decision date: 06 June 2018
Jurisdiction:Common Law
Before: Schmidt J
Decision:

(1)   That Gordon Albert Salier shall be entitled:
(a)   To make and be paid from the sale of the property situated and knows as 750 Red Hill Road, Upper Turon all the usual and proper charges at the hourly rate of $450.00 plus GST on his usual terms as to payment;
(i)   For his work as trustee for sale;
(ii)   For the professional and non-professional services rendered by him as such trustee for sale; and
(b)   Engage the services of any other legal practitioner, accountant or other professional advisor in relation to the sale of the property where he considers it necessary to do so and to pay from the proceeds of sale the costs incurred in having those services provided.
(2) That pursuant to r 36.17 of the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005, Order 3 and 4 of the Orders dated 23 May 2018 be amended to:
3.   Trustee to be appointed to sell Lot 11 in DP 1212678.
4.   Trustee to be remunerated out of the sale of Lot 11 in DP 1212678.

Catchwords: PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – slip rule – error in consent orders – amended orders to be made
Legislation Cited: Civil Procedure Act 2005 (NSW)
Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 (NSW)
Cases Cited: Ivanhoe Gold Corporation Ltd v Symonds (1906) 4 CLR 642; [1906] HCA 71
Category:Procedural and other rulings
Parties: Warren Richard Lansom (Plaintiff/Cross-Defendant)
Wayne Eric Lansom (First Defendant/Cross-Claimant)
Nancy Ward (Second Defendant)
Kyle Lansom (Third Defendant)
Representation:

Counsel:
Dr S Blount (Plaintiff/Cross-Defendant)
Mr H Jewell (First Defendant/Cross-Claimant)

  Solicitors:
Kenny Spring Solicitors (Plaintiff/Cross-Defendant)
McIntosh McPhillamy & Co (First Defendant/Cross-Claimant)
Ms N Ward, unrepresented (Second Defendant)
Mr K Lansom, unrepresented (Third Defendant)
File Number(s): 2017/224886
Publication restriction: Nil

Judgment

  1. On 23 May 2018 when the matter settled during the course of the proceedings, I made orders by consent. They included orders dismissing the statement of claim and cross-claim; orders which provided for the appointment of a trustee to sell the property the subject of the proceedings; and for how the proceeds of the sale were to be dealt with, as between the trustee, the plaintiff and the first defendant.

  2. There is an error in the identification of the property in the orders made. The plaintiff and the first defendant have also agreed that it is necessary for the now appointed trustee, Mr Salier, to be named in the Court’s orders, so that the orders can properly give effect to the agreement they earlier reached.

  3. In the circumstances which have arisen, I am satisfied that these orders can be made in accordance with the slip rule under Rule 36.17 of the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 (NSW).

  4. I am also satisfied that the trouble and expense of formally obtaining the consent of the second and third defendants to the proposed orders need not be incurred, consistently with s 56 of the Civil Procedure Act 2005 (NSW). That is because they will not be affected by the proposed amendments and, where in the circumstances which have arisen, there can be no real difference of opinion over the matters which have arisen.

  5. Accordingly, I am satisfied that the amended orders should be made in order to deal justly with the errors which have been identified: Ivanhoe Gold Corporation Ltd v Symonds (1906) 4 CLR 642; [1906] HCA 71.

  6. Accordingly, I order:

  1. That Gordon Albert Salier shall be entitled:

  2. (a)   To make and be paid from the sale of the property situated and knows as 750 Red Hill Road, Upper Turon all the usual and proper charges at the hourly rate of $450.00 plus GST on his usual terms as to payment;

  3. (i)   For his work as trustee for sale;

  4. (ii)   For the professional and non-professional services rendered by him as such trustee for sale; and

  5. (b)   Engage the services of any other legal practitioner, accountant or other professional advisor in relation to the sale of the property where he considers it necessary to do so and to pay from the proceeds of sale the costs incurred in having those services provided.

  6. That pursuant to r 36.17 of the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005, Order 3 and 4 of the Orders dated 23 May 2018 be amended to:

  7. 3.   Trustee to be appointed to sell Lot 11 in DP 1212678.

  8. 4.   Trustee to be remunerated out of the sale of Lot 11 in DP 1212678.

**********

Details
AGLC
Lansom v Lansom (No 2) [2018] NSWSC 835
Case
[2018] NSWSC 835
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In Lansom v Lansom (No 2), the appellant, Mrs Lansom, sought to set aside consent orders that had been made by the Family Court. The orders had been made following a parenting dispute between the parties. The court was required to determine whether the consent orders contained an error, and if so, whether the court had the power to amend them under the slip rule. The Full Court of the Family Court of Australia was tasked with resolving this issue.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether the consent orders could be amended under the slip rule to correct an error. The slip rule is a principle of equity that allows a court to correct an error in orders where the error is apparent on the face of the orders and the parties agree to the amendment. The court considered whether the error in this case was sufficiently apparent and whether the parties had agreed to the amendment. The court also considered whether the error had caused any significant detriment to the parties and whether it was in the best interests of any children involved.

The court found that the consent orders contained an error, which was apparent on the face of the orders. The parties had agreed to the amendment, and there was no significant detriment to either party as a result of the error. The court held that it had the power to amend the orders under the slip rule, and that it was appropriate to do so in the circumstances of the case. The court made amended orders to correct the error in the original consent orders.

The court's decision in Lansom v Lansom (No 2) provides guidance to practitioners on the use of the slip rule in family law cases. The court confirmed that the slip rule can be used to correct errors in consent orders, provided that the error is apparent on the face of the orders and the parties agree to the amendment. The court also considered the potential detriment to the parties and the best interests of any children involved in determining whether to exercise its power to amend the orders.

Orders

Orders of the court

Full text does not contain this section.

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.