Court of Appeal
New South Wales
Case Title: Lloyd-Jones v Allen (No 2) Medium Neutral Citation: [2012] NSWCA 315 Hearing Date(s): On the papers Decision Date: 28 September 2012 Jurisdiction: Before: Beazley JA at [1], McColl JA at [1], Nicholas J at [1] Decision: 1. Amend order 5(i) of the Court's orders entered on 1 August 2012 by adding the word "amended" prior to the words "statement of claim";
2. Amend order 5(ii) of the Court's orders entered on 1 August 2012 by deleting the words "in the event the defendant fails to establish the defence of truth to the imputations pleaded in (a) and (c) of the amended statement of claim".
[Note: The Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 provide (Rule 36.11) that unless the Court otherwise orders, a judgment or order is taken to be entered when it is recorded in the Court's computerised court record system. Setting aside and variation of judgments or orders is dealt with by Rules 36.15, 36.16, 36.17 and 36.18. Parties should in particular note the time limit of fourteen days in Rule 36.16.]
Catchwords: PROCEDURE - judgments and orders - application to amend orders - correction under slip rule - Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005, r 36.17 - no question of principle Legislation Cited: Defamation Act 2005
Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005Cases Cited: Newmont Yandal Operations Pty Ltd v J Aron Corp [2007] NSWCA 195; (2007) 70 NSWLR 411
Rockcote Enterprises Pty Ltd v FS Architects Pty Ltd (No 2) [2008] NSWCA 205
Sutherland v Stopes [1925] AC 47Texts Cited: Category: Consequential orders Parties: Laurel Lloyd-Jones - Appellant
Anthony James Allen - RespondentRepresentation - Counsel: Counsel: CA Evatt/R Rasmussen - Appellant
BAM Connell/AR Power - Respondent- Solicitors: Solicitors: Carters Law Firm - Appellant
Andrew Warren & Associates - RespondentFile number(s): 2009/334582 Decision Under Appeal - Court / Tribunal: - Before: Colefax DCJ - Date of Decision: 09 May 2011 - Citation: - Court File Number(s) 2009/1549 Publication Restriction: No
JUDGMENT
The Court: The Court handed down judgment in this matter on 1 August 2012: Lloyd-Jones v Allen [2012] NSWCA 230. It made the following orders:
"1 Grant leave to appeal.
2 Direct the appellant to file the notice of appeal in the form of the draft in the White Book within seven days of judgment.
3 Appeal allowed in part.
4 Orders (1) and (2) made by Colefax DCJ on 9 May 2011 be set aside.
5 Remit the matter to the District Court for the determination of:(i) the defence of truth to the imputations pleaded in (a) and (c) in the statement of claim; and
(ii) in the event the defendant fails to establish the defence of truth to the imputations pleaded in (a) and (c) of the amended statement of claim, the assessment of damages.6 Costs of the remitted hearing to be in the discretion of the trial judge.
7 Each party to bear his and her own costs of the appeal."
Continue reading Lloyd-Jones v Allen (No 2)
Sign in free to access the full text
- AGLC
- Lloyd-Jones v Allen (No 2) [2012] NSWCA 315
- Case
- [2012] NSWCA 315
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The central legal issue before the Court was whether it had the power to amend its own orders under the slip rule, specifically Rule 36.17 of the *Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005* (NSW), and whether the proposed amendments fell within the scope of that rule. The Court was required to determine if the amendments sought were merely to correct a clerical mistake or an error arising from an accidental slip or omission, rather than to alter the substantive decision of the Court.
The Court reasoned that Rule 36.17 permits the correction of clerical mistakes or errors arising from accidental slips or omissions in judgments or orders. Applying this principle, the Court found that the proposed amendments were necessary to accurately reflect the Court's intention and to rectify an oversight in the drafting of the original orders. The first amendment involved inserting the word "amended" before "statement of claim" in order 5(i), and the second amendment involved deleting a specific phrase from order 5(ii) which was considered to be an accidental omission. The Court concluded that these were not matters of principle but rather corrections to ensure the orders were properly expressed.
The Court ordered that order 5(i) of the Court's orders entered on 1 August 2012 be amended by adding the word "amended" prior to the words "statement of claim". Furthermore, order 5(ii) of the Court's orders entered on 1 August 2012 was ordered to be amended by deleting the words "in the event the defendant fails to establish the defence of truth to the imputations pleaded in (a) and (c) of the amended statement of claim".
Orders
Orders of the court
1. Amend order 5(i) of the Court's orders entered on 1 August 2012 by adding the word "amended" prior to the words "statement of claim";
2. Amend order 5(ii) of the Court's orders entered on 1 August 2012 by deleting the words "in the event the defendant fails to establish the defence of truth to the imputations pleaded in (a) and (c) of the amended statement of claim".
[Note: The Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 provide (Rule 36.11) that unless the Court otherwise orders, a judgment or order is taken to be entered when it is recorded in the Court's computerised court record system. Setting aside and variation of judgments or orders is dealt with by Rules 36.15, 36.16, 36.17 and 36.18. Parties should in particular note the time limit of fourteen days in Rule 36.16.]
Background
Background to the litigation
Full text does not contain this section.
Evidence
Evidence Before The Court
Full text does not contain this section.
Decision
Reasons for decision
Full text does not contain this section.
Ratio Decidendi
Legal Principle Established
Full text does not contain this section.