LCM Litigation Fund Pty Ltd v Coope; Coope v LCM Litigation Fund Pty Ltd (No 3) [2015] NSWSC 1156

LCM Litigation Fund Pty Ltd v Coope; Coope v LCM Litigation Fund Pty Ltd (No 3) [2015] NSWSC 1156

The transcript contained an error which recorded Mr Coope as agreeing that his departure would have been disastrous, when in fact he disagreed. Although this recorded answer formed part of the court's earlier reasoning, it was not determinative of the outcome. The interests of justice require the court to correct the error, amend the transcript, and issue an addendum to the earlier judgment to reflect that correction, but the overall conclusion of the earlier judgment remains unchanged.

Parties
Plaintiff/cross Defendant: LCM Litigation Fund Pty Ltd; Defendant/cross Claimant: Patrick Mark Coope
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
07 August 2015
Procedural Posture
Procedural and Other Rulings / Post Judgment, Transcription Correction
Outcome
Transcript correction and addendum to earlier judgment directed; earlier judgment to be read subject to corrections.
Legal Topics
Transcription Error, Correction of Judgment, Court Procedure
Civil Procedure Transcription Error Correction of Judgment Court Procedure

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 2 Authorities cited 3 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

LCM Litigation Fund Pty Ltd

Plaintiff/cross Defendant

Patrick Mark Coope

Defendant/cross Claimant

Procedural Posture

Procedural and Other Rulings / Post Judgment, Transcription Correction

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the court should correct a transcription error in the recorded evidence after judgment but before orders are entered
  2. 2 Procedure to reflect amendment in judgment when evidence was erroneously recorded and referenced in reasons

Ratio Decidendi

The transcript contained an error which recorded Mr Coope as agreeing that his departure would have been disastrous, when in fact he disagreed. Although this recorded answer formed part of the court's earlier reasoning, it was not determinative of the outcome. The interests of justice require the court to correct the error, amend the transcript, and issue an addendum to the earlier judgment to reflect that correction, but the overall conclusion of the earlier judgment remains unchanged.

Court Disposition

Transcript correction and addendum to earlier judgment directed; earlier judgment to be read subject to corrections.

Orders

  • Direct that the answer recorded at transcript p 230 line 6 be changed from 'I agree with that' to 'I don't agree with that'.
  • Direct that an addendum be made to the judgment of 24 July 2015 specifying the relevant paragraphs be omitted to accord with the correction.