Broadway Plaza Investments Pty Ltd v Broadway Plaza Pty Ltd; In the matter of Combined Projects (Arncliffe) Pty Ltd (No 2)

The dispute between Broadway Plaza Investments Pty Ltd and Broadway Plaza Pty Ltd, as well as Combined Projects (Arncliffe) Pty Ltd, was before the Supreme Court of New South Wales. The case involved a request for correction under the slip rule, with Broadway Plaza Investments seeking to amend the record of a previous judgment to reflect that it had been a party to the proceedings. The application was made under the inherent jurisdiction of the court, with the primary focus being on whether the court could amend the record to reflect the true facts of the case.

The central legal issue before the court was whether the slip rule could be invoked to correct an error in the record of proceedings, specifically to add a party that had not been originally named but was indeed a party to the matter. The court considered whether it had the inherent jurisdiction to correct such an error and what principles should guide the exercise of that jurisdiction. The court also examined the broader implications for the administration of justice and the potential consequences of allowing such amendments.

In its judgment, the court recognised the inherent jurisdiction to correct errors in the record of proceedings where it is clear that the error has resulted in a miscarriage of justice or significant unfairness. The court found that Broadway Plaza Investments had not been named as a party due to an administrative oversight and that it had been significantly affected by the error. The court held that it was appropriate to exercise its inherent jurisdiction to correct the record to reflect the true facts of the case. The court emphasised the importance of ensuring that the administration of justice is not undermined by procedural errors and that the true parties to a matter should be properly identified.

The final orders included amending the record to reflect that Broadway Plaza Investments had been a party to the proceedings from the outset, with no costs awarded against any party for the amendment. The court also noted that the general rule that costs follow the event could be departed from in exceptional circumstances, and it exercised its discretion to make no order as to costs in this case.