LCM Litigation Fund Pty Ltd v Coope; Coope v LCM Litigation Fund Pty Ltd (No 3)

LCM Litigation Fund Pty Ltd sought to recover costs from the defendant, Coope, in the sum of $701,784.80. The dispute arose from the transcription of an answer given by the defendant in cross-examination, which was later found to contain an error. The error was brought to the attention of the court after the judgment was delivered. The erroneous answer was included in the reasons for judgment, but it did not determine the outcome. The court was required to determine whether the transcript should be amended and, if so, the appropriate procedure to reflect that amendment in the judgment.

The court considered the appropriate procedure for amending a transcript after judgment has been delivered, particularly in circumstances where an error is discovered in an answer given in cross-examination. The court held that where an error in a transcript is discovered after judgment and it is clear that the error does not affect the outcome, the transcript should be amended. The court emphasised that the purpose of the amendment was to ensure accuracy and transparency in the record, and not to alter the substantive outcome of the case. The court also considered the procedure to be adopted to reflect the amendment in the judgment, noting that the amendment should be made in a way that does not mislead or confuse the reader.

In light of the above, the court ordered that the transcript be amended to correct the error in the defendant's answer. The court also ordered that the reasons for judgment be amended to reflect the correction. The court held that the amendment should be made in a way that does not alter the substantive outcome of the case, and that the parties should be given an opportunity to make submissions on the appropriate procedure for making the amendment. The court held that the amendment should be made by way of a corrigendum to the reasons for judgment, which should be circulated to the parties and filed with the court.

The court's decision provides guidance on the procedure to be adopted where an error is discovered in a transcript after judgment has been delivered. The decision emphasises the importance of accuracy and transparency in the record, while also recognising the need to avoid altering the substantive outcome of the case. The decision also provides a practical solution to the problem of correcting errors in transcripts, by way of a corrigendum to the reasons for judgment.