Woods v Woods [2001] NSWSC 594

Woods v Woods [2001] NSWSC 594

Although there had been inadvertence by counsel and by the Court, the loan was repayable by the 1994 date from which interest had in fact been calculated, that date also being significant as the son's written acknowledgment of the loan. In the circumstances, including that the mother's solicitor selected the commencement date used in the entered judgment, the Court exercised its discretion to refuse both applications and left the judgment unchanged.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
17 July 2001
Procedural Posture
Application to Correct or Vary Judgment Under the Slip Rule / After Judgment Had Been Entered on 27 April 2000
Outcome
Applications to vary judgment by both first plaintiff and first defendant refused.
Legal Topics
['correction of Judgments and Orders' 'slip Rule' 'accidental Slip or Omission' 'interest on Loan Debt']
['civil Procedure' 'equity'] ['correction of Judgments and Orders' 'slip Rule' 'accidental Slip or Omission' 'interest on Loan Debt']

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 1 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Application to Correct or Vary Judgment Under the Slip Rule / After Judgment Had Been Entered on 27 April 2000

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the judgment sum entered for the loan claim should be reduced under the slip rule because interest had been calculated from a date earlier than the first demand for repayment.' 'Whether the judgment sum should instead be increased or otherwise altered because the loan was repayable before the demand and interest should have run from an earlier date.' 'Whether the errors identified were accidental slips or omissions capable of correction under Supreme Court Rules 1970 Part 20 r 10.']

Ratio Decidendi

Although there had been inadvertence by counsel and by the Court, the loan was repayable by the 1994 date from which interest had in fact been calculated, that date also being significant as the son's written acknowledgment of the loan. In the circumstances, including that the mother's solicitor selected the commencement date used in the entered judgment, the Court exercised its discretion to refuse both applications and left the judgment unchanged.

Court Disposition

Applications to vary judgment by both first plaintiff and first defendant refused.

Orders

  • ['No alteration to the judgment entered on 27 April 2000.' 'No order as to the costs of the applications relating to correction of the judgment.']