Cerny and Seidler (No 2)

This matter came before Loughnan J in the Family Court of Australia concerning an application by the mother to vary or set aside orders pursuant to the slip rule, and a separate application by the wife for costs. The dispute involved complex family law proceedings that had been ongoing for several years.

The primary legal issues before the court were whether the mother's application to amend the existing orders fell within the scope of the slip rule, and if so, to what extent. Additionally, the court was required to determine whether the husband's conduct warranted an order for costs in favour of the wife, considering his financial position relative to hers and the protracted nature of the litigation.

Loughnan J considered the application of the slip rule, referencing relevant case law including *Gludau & Gludau (No. 2)*, *McCormack*, and *DJL v The Central Authority*. The court noted that the slip rule, as currently formulated in r 17.02A of the Family Law Rules, is primarily intended to correct clerical mistakes or errors arising from accidental slips or omissions that are obvious upon reading the order. While some amendments were deemed appropriate under this rule, others were not, as they would have involved a substantive reconsideration of the court's decision rather than a correction of an accidental error. Regarding costs, the court found that the husband's conduct had caused the wife to incur costs beyond what would normally be expected, and given his superior financial position and the duration of the litigation, it was in the interests of justice to make a costs order.

The court ordered that the father pay $80,000 to the solicitor for the mother by way of costs, within 21 days of a specified payment to him, or as otherwise agreed in writing by the parties.