Russell & Russell

This matter concerned an appeal by the parties, Russell & Russell, against a property and maintenance judgment made by a trial judge. Both parties agreed that the trial judge had made an error of fact in the original judgment.

The central legal issue before the appellate court was whether it could intervene to correct the error of fact made by the trial judge. Specifically, the court considered whether the available remedies, such as those under s.79A(1A) of the Act, had been appropriately pursued, and alternatively, whether the "slip rule" or Order 31 Rule 6 of the Rules provided a basis for correction.

The court referred to the principles established in *House v. The King*, which allow appellate intervention where a judge has acted upon a wrong principle, considered irrelevant matters, mistaken the facts, or failed to consider material considerations. While acknowledging that an error of fact can be grounds for appellate review, the court noted that not every mistake of fact warrants intervention. The court also examined the "slip rule," citing *Elyard Corporation Pty Ltd v DDB Needham Sydney Pty Ltd*, which permits courts to correct errors in orders arising from accidental slips or omissions, and that courts possess an inherent jurisdiction to amend judgments that do not accurately reflect what was decided and intended.