PINDER & SLEDGE (No.2)

In *Pinder & Sledge (No.2)*, the Family Court of Australia considered an application concerning the enforcement of Final Orders made in a property settlement. The Applicant alleged that the Respondent had defaulted on her obligations under these orders, which were intended to effect a 70/30 per cent division of property in favour of the Respondent. The core of the dispute revolved around a specific payment due from the Respondent to the Applicant, the failure of which was said to trigger an obligation for the Respondent to sell her property.

The central legal issue before the Court was whether the Final Orders could be corrected under the "slip rule" in light of events that transpired after their making. Specifically, the Court had to determine if the fact that the Respondent's property sold for a sum exceeding its sworn valuation, upon which the Final Orders were based, constituted a "slip" that warranted correction. The Applicant contended that this discrepancy meant the Respondent had not complied with the Final Orders as intended.

Judge Small reasoned that the Final Orders were clear and unambiguous in their terms, reflecting the agreed division of property. The Court found that the Respondent had ultimately complied with the Final Orders by selling her property and making the required payment to the Applicant, even though the sale price exceeded the initial valuation. The Court held that the "slip rule" is intended to correct errors arising from accidental omissions or slips in expressing the judgment or orders of the court, not to alter the substantive rights of the parties or to account for subsequent market fluctuations or unforeseen outcomes of agreed arrangements. Therefore, the Court concluded that there was no "slip" to correct.

Consequently, the Court dismissed the Applicant's application filed on 23 May 2018.