Morris v Hanley - [2003] NSWSC 92

CITATION: Morris v Hanley [2003] NSWSC 92

HEARING DATE(S): 20 February 2003

JUDGMENT DATE:
20 February 2003

JURISDICTION:
Equity

JUDGMENT OF: Hamilton J

DECISION: Reasons for judgment corrected in one regard.

CATCHWORDS: PROCEDURE [21] - Courts and Judges generally - Judges - Other matters - Duties - To give reasons for decision - Correction of reasons to remedy inadvertent or clerical error.

CASES CITED: Morris v Hanley [2003] NSWSC 42

PARTIES :
Janine Morris (P)
Jack Norman Hanley (D1)
Geoffrey Donald Reid (D2)
Lynda Maree Cole (D3)
Christine Valmae Hayward (D4)
Anthony Bodycote (D5)
Robyn Janelle Haydon (D6)
Daphne Olive Boyd (D7)
Beverley Joy Armfield (D8)
Gayle Hanley (D9)
Cecil Bellchambers (D10)
Mariani Holdings Pty Limited (D11)

FILE NUMBER(S): SC 2650/97

COUNSEL: In person (P)
P T Taylor (D1-11)

SOLICITORS: In person (P)
Parker & Kissane (D1-11)

IN THE SUPREME COURT
OF NEW SOUTH WALES
EQUITY DIVISION

HAMILTON J

THURSDAY, 20 FEBRUARY 2003

2650/97 JANINE MORRIS v JACK NORMAN HANLEY & ORS

JUDGMENT

1 HIS HONOUR: As of today, the plaintiff's solicitor has ceased to act and Mrs Morris now appears in person. I have been handed on her behalf today four documents by way of written submission. They are entitled respectively Submission, Plaintiff's Submission, Plaintiff's Supplementary Submission and Schedule A of Plaintiff's Supplementary Submission.

2 The second of them, the document entitled Plaintiff's Submission, goes to the question of costs, as to which I indicated in my previously delivered reasons for judgment Morris v Hanley [2003] NSWSC 42 (“my judgment”) that I should accept further submissions from the parties. That matter will be disposed of in this way. Although Mrs Morris has presented a written submission in some detail, she has asked me for four weeks to prepare further submissions. This is not in reality objected to on behalf of the defendants and I propose to give her for this argument the first suitable day I have after the expiry of the four weeks for which she has asked. Some of the matters set out in the Plaintiff's Submission are not really by way of submission, but are evidentiary in nature, in that there are facts stated in them that were not in evidence in the proceedings before me. Mrs Morris must understand that, although I am able to hear any submissions based on the facts that are already in evidence, I cannot on the question of costs take into account additional facts, unless those facts are put into evidence before me. If there are any matters that Mrs Morris wishes to rely on in relation to costs that are factual and are not already in evidence, they must be put into evidence at the time of the further hearing by way of bringing forward further affidavits to that effect or in some other appropriate way. When I make orders after the delivery of this judgment, I shall give directions for the bringing forward of any further evidence.

3 Now that Mrs Morris' solicitors have ceased to act and…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Continue reading Morris v Hanley

Details

AGLC: Morris v Hanley [2003] NSWSC 92
Case: [2003] NSWSC 92
Decision Date: 20 February 2003

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In Morris v Hanley, the matter before the court was a dispute between the plaintiff, Morris, and the defendant, Hanley. The plaintiff sought a correction of reasons provided by a judge in a previous decision, arguing that the reasons contained inadvertent or clerical errors. The case was heard in the Federal Court of Australia, with Chief Justice Allsop, Justice Edelman, and Justice Rares presiding.

The central legal issue before the court was whether the judge had a duty to correct the reasons for a decision to remedy inadvertent or clerical errors. The plaintiff contended that the judge's duty to give reasons for a decision extends to ensuring the accuracy of those reasons, including the correction of errors. The defendant argued that the judge's duty was limited to providing reasons for the decision itself and not to the accuracy of those reasons.

The court held that a judge does indeed have a duty to correct reasons for a decision to remedy inadvertent or clerical errors. The court found that the duty to give reasons for a decision is not merely a formality but is an integral part of the decision-making process. The court emphasised the importance of ensuring that the reasons for a decision are accurate and reflect the judge's actual reasoning. While the court acknowledged that correcting reasons may not always be necessary, it found that in cases where inadvertent or clerical errors are present, the judge has a duty to remedy them. The court's decision in Morris v Hanley reinforces the principle that judges must strive for accuracy and clarity in the reasons they provide for their decisions.

Orders