| JURISDICTION : DISTRICT COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA LOCATION : PERTH CITATION : SHERAR -v- NICOLI [2003] WADC 6 (S) CORAM : NISBET DCJ HEARD : 3-5 DECEMBER 2002, 29 & 31 JANUARY 2003 DELIVERED : 17 JANUARY 2003 SUPPLEMENTARY
DECISION : 10 FEBRUARY 2003 FILE NO/S : CIV 1794 of 2000 BETWEEN : JOANNE SHERAR Plaintiff
AND
GLORIA MARIE NICOLI
Defendant
Catchwords: Practice and procedure - Amendment of judgment - Slip rule - Correction of calculation of past economic loss - Correction of judgment
Legislation: Nil
Result: Amendment of award from $32,973 to $30,222.46
(Page 2)
Representation:
Counsel:
Plaintiff : Mr T N Cullity
Defendant : Mr J R Brooksby
Solicitors:
Plaintiff : Trewin Norman & Co
Defendant : Greenland Brooksby
Case(s) referred to in judgment(s):
Nil
Case(s) also cited:
Nil
(Page 3)
1 NISBET DCJ: When I delivered my judgment in this matter on 17 January 2003 no-one was in attendance on behalf of the plaintiff and I accordingly adjourned motions for judgment. When the matter came on again before me on 29 January 2003 counsel for the defendant indicated that he thought that there was an error in my calculation of past economic loss on the basis that at par 34 of my judgment I said that "it appears to be common ground between the parties that her then net income was $450 per week". Defendant's counsel advised me that this was not common ground and drew my attention to an exhibit which tended to suggest that this figure was less. However he had not had the opportunity to communicate with counsel for the plaintiff and counsel for the plaintiff (who was caught by surprise) and, accordingly, motions for judgment were further adjourned until Friday, 31 January 2003.
2 On that day counsel for the plaintiff advised that the figure of $450 per week which had been provided by him in his outline of submissions had been incorrectly calculated by him. It does not much matter as to how the mistake was made but it was a simple mathematical error. For my part a review of the transcript shows that after the plaintiff's counsel had produced schedules of calculation of (inter alia) past economic loss I invited further submission from counsel for the defendant as he had not been provided with copies of the outlines of calculations in advance of plaintiff counsel's closing submissions. I was told by the defendant's counsel "… in terms of the pure mathematical calculations I have probably got nothing to add." And it was on this basis that I mistakenly assumed that the figure of $450 net was not in dispute. 3 On 31 January 2003, however, the parties were in complete agreement that the calculation of $450 per week contained a simple mathematical error and that the true figure was $405.48 net per week. Calculated out this meant that the loss for the year I had allowed the plaintiff in my judgment was $21,085 not $23,400. There were then consequential recalculations of interest resulting in interest being recalculated in accordance with the methodology adopted in my judgment in the sums of $632.55 in lieu of the $702 appearing in par 41 of my judgment and the sum of $2,423.91 appearing in lieu of the $2,790 in the same paragraph. 4 The result of all of this is that the plaintiff is not entitled to judgment in the sum of $32,793 but is entitled to judgment in the sum of $30,222.46.
(Page 4)
5 Accordingly, when counsel for the plaintiff moved for judgment in the lower sum, not opposed by counsel for the defendant, I entered judgment in that amount and not in the amount of $32,793 as disclosed in my calculations in the judgment delivered 17 January.
6 I do not require the parties to attend in open court to receive these supplementary reasons for judgment but will ask my associate to distribute them.
|