Herrod v Johnston

In the case of Herrod v Johnston, the respondents sought to amend the Court of Appeal’s judgment of 18 December 2012. The original judgment had awarded each respondent their one ninth share of the value of the partnership and their one third share of the residuary estate, plus interest. The Court had reduced the value of the deceased’s partnership interest to account for partnership debts but did not increase each respondent’s share of the residue by one third of the partnership debts. The respondents argued that the Court’s order did not reflect its intention or resulted from an accidental slip or omission. They contended that the partnership debts should have fallen into the residue of the estate. The appellants opposed the application, asserting that the respondents' claim was inconsistent with their position on appeal and that the partnership debts were to be paid to the widow under the will. The central legal issues involved whether the Court of Appeal’s order should be amended to reflect its true intention and whether the respondents’ application for variation should be granted.

The Court considered the inherent power to amend judgments to give effect to the court's meaning and intention. The Court observed that the respondents’ argument was essentially that the Court of Appeal had made an error in its calculations. However, the Court found that the respondents had not provided sufficient grounds to justify varying the order. The Court noted that the respondents had not argued at first instance or on appeal that the quantum of their interests in the residuary estate should be measured by reference to the partnership debts. Consequently, the Court held that the respondents had not demonstrated that the order did not reflect the Court of Appeal’s intention or resulted from an accidental slip or omission. The Court also rejected the respondents' argument that the partnership debts should have fallen into the residue of the estate, as it was not raised in the original appeal. Furthermore, the Court dismissed the appellants’ application for costs, finding that the appellants had not achieved an appreciable measure of success on appeal and that the respondents had not rejected the appellants’ settlement offer.

The Court ultimately refused the respondents' application for variation of the orders of 18 December 2012 and the appellants' application for a costs order. This decision underscored the Court’s view that the original judgment accurately reflected its intention and that the respondents had not demonstrated any error or omission warranting an amendment. The refusal of the costs application further highlighted the Court’s assessment that the appellants had not achieved a significant level of success on appeal.