AKRON SECURITIES LTD v ILIFFE and ORS (No 3) [1997] NSWCA 10

AKRON SECURITIES LTD v ILIFFE and ORS (No 3) [1997] NSWCA 10

The Court may correct its order under the slip rule where the order, by accidental slip or omission, failed to give effect to the Court's clear intention as expressed in its principal reasoning. The restitutionary order made in Akron (No 2) contained an accidental error in calculation inconsistent with the manifest intent in Akron (No 1), justifying correction. Entry of the mistaken orders contrary to directions did not preclude such correction.

Parties
Appellant: Akron Securities Ltd; Respondent: Iliffe; Respondent: Others (Ors)
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
26 September 1997
Procedural Posture
Application / Post Judgment Correction (slip Rule)
Outcome
Application allowed.
Legal Topics
Slip Rule, Restitution, Breach of Trade Practices Act S52, Amendment of Court Orders
Civil Procedure Slip Rule Restitution Breach of Trade Practices Act S52 Amendment of Court Orders

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 10 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 11
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Akron Securities Ltd

Appellant

Iliffe

Respondent

Others (Ors)

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Application / Post Judgment Correction (slip Rule)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the court has power to correct a restitutionary order under the slip rule after entry of orders that embodied a mathematical and conceptual error;
  2. 2 Whether the improper entry of orders despite directions constitutes an error correctable by the court;
  3. 3 Whether respondents are entitled to further credits in calculation of amounts due under Lease and Loan Agreements;

Ratio Decidendi

The Court may correct its order under the slip rule where the order, by accidental slip or omission, failed to give effect to the Court's clear intention as expressed in its principal reasoning. The restitutionary order made in Akron (No 2) contained an accidental error in calculation inconsistent with the manifest intent in Akron (No 1), justifying correction. Entry of the mistaken orders contrary to directions did not preclude such correction.

Court Disposition

Application allowed.

Orders

  • Orders O1 and O3 of the appellant's Notice of Motion granted, including correction of the restitutionary order to reflect appellant’s entitlement to further sums from respondents as listed in the Notice of Motion.
  • Respondents to pay appellant’s costs of the application.