Stack v AGL Gas Company (NSW) Pty LTd (No 2)

[2003] NSWSC 504

CITATION:	Stack v AGL Gas Company (NSW) Pty LTd & Ors (No 2) [2003] NSWSC 504
HEARING DATE(S):	5 June 2003
JUDGMENT DATE:	5 June 2003
JUDGMENT OF:	Newman AJ at 1
DECISION:	1. Judgment total of $4, 093, 089 is amended to total $4, 373, 089; 2. Judgment runs from 23 May 2003
CATCHWORDS:	Application of slip rule.
LEGISLATION CITED:	Supreme Court Act, s95
PARTIES :	Gloria Ivy Stack - Plaintiff AGL Gas Company (NSW) Pty Limited - Defendant 1 State Rail Authority of NSW - Defendant 2 Arup Partner Pty Ltd T/AS -"Capital Works Management" -Defendant 3 Ove Arup Consult Pty Limited T/AS -"Capital Works Management"-Defendant 4 Ove Arup Pty Limited T/AS -"Capital Works Management" -Defendant 5 TMG International Pty Limited T/AS -"Capital Works Management"-Defendant 6 Edwards Madigan Torzillo Briggs Pty Limited T/AS -"Capital Works Management"-Defendant 7 Group One Interiors Pty Limited T/AS -"Capital Works Management"-Defendant 8 Abigroup Contractors Pty Limited - Defendant 9 Josep & Sons Contracting Pty Limited (In liquidation) - Defendant 10 Josef & sons Pty Limited -Defendant 11 Robert Josef - Defendant 12 Daniel Josef - Defendant 13 Barry Adler - Defendant 14 Robert Campbell - Defendant 15
FILE NUMBER(S):	SC 20737/97
COUNSEL:	B. Gross QC / T. Boyd - Plaintiff F. Stylianou (solicitor) - For all Defendant's
SOLICITORS:	Carroll & O'Dea - Plaintiff Ebsworth & Ebsworth - 1st, 8th, 9th, 10th Defendant Tress Cocks & Maddox - 2nd Defendant Phillips Fox - 3rd, 4th, 5th Defendant Henry Davis York - 6th Defendant Minter Ellison - 7th Defendant Thompson Cooper Lawyers - 11th, 12th, 13th, 14th, 15th Defendant

IN THE SUPREME COURT
OF NEW SOUTH WALES
COMMON LAW DIVISION

Newman AJ

5 June 2003

20737/97 Gloria Stack v AGL Gas Company (NSW) Pty Ltd & Ors (no 2)

JUDGMENT

1 HIS HONOUR: This is an application made pursuant to Pt 20 r 10 which is colloquially known as the ‘slip rule’.

2 The application, which is in fact non controversial in its content, is to amend the judgment to correct an arithmetical error. There was no doubt that the error occurred and, in my view, there is no doubt that the rule applies.

3 Accordingly, I shall amend para 27 of the judgment delivered on 16 May 2003 by inserting in its lieu the paragraph which has been handed up and headed “Proposed Amended Paragraph 27”. This means the judgment total of $4, 093, 089 is amended to total $4, 373, 089.

4 The judgment sum will be in the amount of $4, 373, 089.

5 Judgment was delivered on 16 May 2003. The plaintiff submits that interest should run from that date. As it happens the period in which liability for interest will crystallise has not yet been completed.

6 On behalf of the defendants it was submitted that because of the complexity of the number of funds, upon which the defendants had to draw, to satisfy the judgment, that the slip rule, while applying, should not be used to increase the defendants’ liability. The necessity for obtaining instructions and, indeed, having a certified copy of judgment apparently is of the essence of that application.

7 Under s 95 of the Supreme Court Act, the court has a discretion over interest payments.

8 In these circumstances I am of the view that what I should do is to not accede to either parties submission but to make the judgment run from 23 May 2003 which will give the defendants time to satisfy its technical requirements and yet assist in making certain, if one can, that the plaintiff gets paid promptly.

Last Modified: 06/12/2003