Farrand & Mahdi (No. 3)

In *Farrand & Mahdi (No. 3)*, Carew J considered an application to amend a costs order made on 26 March 2021 in substantive parenting proceedings between a maternal grandmother (applicant) and the children's father (respondent). The dispute arose from a costs order made by a Registrar on 16 April 2021, which the respondent sought to have reviewed. The core of the issue was whether the earlier costs order of 26 March 2021 had implicitly dismissed the respondent's application for costs related to a previous interim parenting application, or if that application remained outstanding.

The legal issues before the Court were whether the costs order of 26 March 2021 was amenable to variation under the slip rule, and if so, whether it accurately reflected the Court's intention regarding the outstanding costs application from the interim parenting hearing. The applicant argued that the order did not arise from an accidental slip and that amending it would cause prejudice, as she had discontinued her appeal against the 26 March 2021 costs order based on the understanding that it encompassed all costs applications.

Carew J found that the reasons for judgment delivered on 26 March 2021 clearly indicated that the respondent's application for costs arising from the interim parenting hearing was not before the Court at that time. The Court determined that the wording of paragraph 2 of the 26 March 2021 order was infelicitous and did not reflect the Court's intention to dismiss all outstanding applications, save for the specific costs application filed on 21 May 2020. Consequently, the Court held that the order could be amended pursuant to the slip rule, specifically subrule (e) or (h) of Rule 17.02 of the *Family Law Rules 2004* (Cth), as it contained an error arising from an accidental slip or omission.

The Court ordered that paragraph 2 of the order made on 26 March 2021 be amended to read: "All outstanding applications (save for the Application in a Case for costs filed on 21 May 2020) be otherwise dismissed." The Court also extended the time for filing an application for review of the Registrar's decision and subsequently dismissed that review application. The decision of the Registrar regarding costs for the interim parenting application was therefore permitted to stand.