Teitzel v Bull

[2005] QDC 231

[2005] QDC 231

DISTRICT COURT

CIVIL JURISDICTION

JUDGE ROBIN QC

No 1691 of 1996

PETER JOSEPH TEITZEL	Plaintiff
and
DAVID EDWARD BULL	Defendant

BRISBANE

..DATE 19/07/2005

ORDER

CATCHWORDS: UCPR r 388 - "slip rule" used to correct an order as taken out which (to the plaintiff's disadvantage) omitted from the costs provision certain words included in the order as pronounced and as endorsed on the court file by the associate.

HIS HONOUR: In this matter, on the 14th June 2005, as may be seen from the contents of [2005] QDC 197, the Court pronounced, by way of dealing with costs, an order that the plaintiff pay the defendant his costs if any occasioned by the amendment which the Court permitted and also one half of his costs of the application which the Court considered on that day, costs to be assessed on the standard basis.

The order sheet on the Court's file shows that the associate's endorsement corresponded with the order pronounced.  Unfortunately, when the relevant order was taken out and sealed by the Registrar on the 1st July 2005, the provision regarding costs which it contained was as follows:

The plaintiff to pay the defendant's costs of this application, costs to be assessed on the standard basis."

I will mark Exhibit 1 correspondence directed to the Court from the plaintiff's solicitors, who are a New South Wales firm seeking that the Court act under the slip rule now located in Rule 388 of the UCPR to correct the mistake which is patent.

Accordingly it is ordered that the order taken out on 1st July 2005 be amended by inserting after the expression "defendant's costs" the words, "if any occasioned by the amendment and also one half of his costs."

-----