Griffith v John Fairfax Publications (No. 2)

[2004] NSWCA 388

CITATION:	Griffith v John Fairfax Publications (No. 2) [2004] NSWCA 388
HEARING DATE(S):	On papers
JUDGMENT DATE:	27 October 2004
JUDGMENT OF:	Sheller JA; Tobias JA; Young CJ in Eq
DECISION:	That paragraph 56(g) of the judgment of 20 October 2004 be varied by deleting therefrom the words "first and second respondents" and inserting in lieu the word "appellants".
CATCHWORDS:	JUDGMENTS - Error in orders - varying order
LEGISLATION CITED:	Supreme Court Rules 1970
CASES CITED:	None
PARTIES :	Jeremy Norman Griffith Foundation for Humanity's Adulthood Timothy John Macartney-Snape The Persons Named in Schedule "A" to the Notice of Appeal with Appointment John Fairfax Publications Pty Limited David Milikan William Anthony McClelland t/as "Cultaware"
FILE NUMBER(S):	CA 40188/04
COUNSEL:	A: K P Smark 1R & 2R: R Lancaster / N Owens R3: P Menadue
SOLICITORS:	A: Schweizer Kobras, Sydney 1R & 2R: Freehills, Sydney 3R: William Anthony McClelland

LOWER COURTJURISDICTION:	Supreme Court
LOWER COURT FILE NUMBER(S):	SC 20301/01
LOWER COURT JUDICIAL OFFICER :	Levine J

CA 40188/04
SC 20301/01

SHELLER JA
TOBIAS JA
YOUNG CJ in Eq

Wednesday 26 October 2004

JEREMY NORMAN GRIFFITH & ORS v JOHN FAIRFAX PUBLICATIONS PTY LTD & ORS (No. 2)

Supplementary Judgment

1 THE COURT: Since delivering judgment in this matter on 20 October 2004, counsel for the appellants and the solicitor for the first and second respondents have brought to our attention an error in [56(g)] of the judgment wherein an order was made that the first and second respondents pay the costs of the appeal with respect to the first matter complained of.

2 The appellants and the first and second respondents agree that this is in error as the appellants were unsuccessful with respect to the first matter complained of as a consequence whereof it is they who should pay the costs of the appeal with respect to that matter.

3 The Court has been invited by those parties to correct the mistake pursuant to Part 20 r 10(1) of the Supreme Court Rules 1970 and to do so without any further hearing.

4 It is clear that an error has been made in the order set forth in [56(g)] of the judgment and that it should be corrected in accordance with the request of the appellants counsel and the first and second respondents' solicitor. Accordingly, the Court orders that [56(g)] of the judgment of 20 October 2004 be varied by deleting therefrom the words "first and second respondents" and inserting in lieu the word "appellants".

**********

Last Modified: 11/02/2004