11 Mar 2020
The court applied r 11.10 and the misnomer principle and corrected the defendant's misspelt name because the statement of claim and incorporated documents made the defendant's identity clear, and the correction caused no injustice allowing the order to be amended without notice.
17 Jul 2013
The Court ordered statutory interest under s 87 of the Judicature Act 1908 on $560,000 from 31 August 2012, refused the defendant's submission that costs should lie where they fall and awarded costs to the plaintiff on the 2B scale plus disbursements totalling $17,151.20, and amended the earlier judgment to reflect a $10,000 payment reducing the judgment sum to $720,000.
1 Mar 2010
Paragraph [142] of the earlier judgment is to be amended: judgment is entered for the stated sum against the named trustees of the Opepe Farm Trust in their capacity as trustees, with personal liability limited to the first three named trustees, and judgment is also entered for the same amount against the sixth defendant.
1 Mar 2010
Paragraph [142] of the prior judgment is amended to enter judgment for the stated sum against Hupa James Maniapoto, James Heemi Biddle, Owen Purcell, Emily Rameka and Puti Puti Biel in their capacity as trustees of the Opepe Farm Trust, with personal liability limited to the first three named trustees, and judgment is also entered for the same amount against the sixth defendant.
30 Sept 2008
The court found the discrepancy in the pleaded consequential loss figures was a minor clerical error arising from the third statement of claim and, having regard to the evidence of Mr Blackmore and the parties' joint memorandum, ordered the judgment amended under High Court Rules r540(4) to reflect the correct consequential loss amount of $5,720 for the owners of Units 13 and 14.
26 May 2006
Rule 11 does not permit amendment of a sealed judgment; Rule 12 is limited to correcting clerical mistakes, slips or omissions and will permit substitution only in a clear case of misnomer where the correct defendant appreciated they were the intended target and had an opportunity to be heard; the Court's implied residual power to set aside a sealed judgment exists only in exceptional cases to prevent a substantial miscarriage of justice. On the facts the error was misjoinder (substantive) not remediable under Rule 12 and no exceptional necessity was established, so the District Court erred i…