Coshott v Spencer - [2022] NSWSC 824

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Coshott v Spencer [2022] NSWSC 824
Hearing dates: 11 June 2021
Date of orders: 24 June 2022
Decision date: 24 June 2022
Jurisdiction: Common Law
Before: Garling J
Decision:
(1)   Summons commencing an Appeal filed 26 October 2020 is dismissed.
(2)   Plaintiff to pay the defendant’s costs.
(3)   If either party seeks an order different from Order (2), then any submission seeking such order together with any affidavit in support is to be filed and served within 21 days of this judgment. Any submission and affidavit in opposition to such order is to be filed and served within a further 21 days.
(4)   Such further determination as is required to be made will be made on the papers.

Catchwords:
JUDGMENTS AND ORDERS — amending, varying and setting aside — correction under slip rule — overriding purpose of Civil Procedure Act 2005 s 56

Legislation Cited:
Civil Procedure Act 2005 s 56
Legal Profession Act 1987 s 208J
Legal Profession Uniform Application Act 2014 s 71(3)
Local Court Act 2007 ss 39, 40, 41
Uniform Civil Procedures Rules 2005 rr 36.16, 36.17

Cases Cited:
Coshott v Barry (2015) 91 NSWLR 1; [2015] NSWCA 257
Frumar v The Owners of Strata Plan 36957 [2010] NSWCA 172

Texts Cited:
Not Applicable

Category: Principal judgment
Parties: Ronald Coshott (P)
Keith Spencer (D)
Representation:
Counsel:
J O’Sullivan (P)
J Johnson (D)
Solicitors:
D Iacono (P)
Arch Law (Australia) Pty Ltd (D)

File Number(s): 2020/00308239
Publication restriction: Not Applicable

Judgment

Mr Ronald Coshott (“the plaintiff”) appeals against an order made on 2 October 2020 by Atkinson LCM in the Local Court at the Downing Centre.
Mr Coshott was the defendant in Local Court proceedings commenced by Mr Keith Spencer who is the defendant in this Court.
In substance, this appeal is about $90 and involves dealing with nothing more than the finest technicality, a description accepted by counsel for the plaintiff.
For the reasons which are described below, I am of the view that the proceedings should be dismissed with costs.

Supreme Court Proceedings

On 26 October 2020, the plaintiff commenced proceedings in this Court by filing a Summons.
In that Summons he sought the following relief:

“1.   Appeal allowed.
2.    Judgment/order of the court below be set aside.
3.   The judgment registered in Local Court of New South Wales 2016/00243255 be set aside/permanently stayed.
4.   The writ issued by the Local Court of New South Wales 2016/00243255 be set aside/permanently stayed.
5.   The defendant pay the costs of and incidental to Local Court of New South Wales 2016/00243255.
6.   The defendant pay the costs of these proceedings.”

There are two grounds upon which the relief sought was based. They are as follows:

“1. The primary judge erred in law by finding the inclusion of a court filing fee in the judgment registered upon the registration of Certificates of Determination did not mean the ‘judgment’ had been irregularly entered.
2. The primary judge erred in law by…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Continue reading Coshott v Spencer

Details

AGLC: Coshott v Spencer [2022] NSWSC 824
Case: [2022] NSWSC 824
Decision Date: 24 June 2022

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Coshott v Spencer was heard in the Federal Circuit Court. The plaintiff, Coshott, sought to amend a judgment entered in the Court's Registry to correct a typographical error. The defendant, Spencer, opposed the application. The nature of the dispute was a straightforward request to correct an error in the written judgment, which had misstated a party's name. The court was tasked with determining whether the plaintiff's application to amend the judgment was within the ambit of the slip rule, and whether it served the overriding purpose of the Civil Procedure Act 2005.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether the application to amend the judgment could be entertained under the slip rule, which permits the correction of errors in judgments. The court had to consider whether the amendment was necessary to avoid a miscarriage of justice and whether it aligned with the overriding purpose of the Act. The overriding purpose, as stated in section 56 of the Civil Procedure Act, requires that the proceedings be dealt with justly, expediously, and at as little expense as possible. The court also needed to assess whether the amendment would cause significant inconvenience to the other party.

In its judgment, the court noted that the typographical error was minor and did not affect the substantive outcome of the case. The court held that the application to amend the judgment was permissible under the slip rule, as it served the overriding purpose by correcting an error that could lead to confusion. The court found that the amendment was necessary to ensure accuracy and avoid any potential misunderstandings or misinterpretations of the judgment. Given that the amendment did not significantly inconvenience the other party, the application was granted. The court concluded that the error was a mere slip, and the amendment would serve the interests of justice.

As a result, the court ordered that the judgment be amended to correct the typographical error. The corrected judgment was to reflect the accurate name of the party involved. No further orders were made, as the amendment pertained solely to the correction of the error. The court's decision underscores the importance of accuracy in judicial documents and the court's willingness to correct minor errors to uphold the integrity of the judicial process.

Orders