Thompson v Cavalier King Charles Spaniel Rescue (Qld) Inc

In Thompson v Cavalier King Charles Spaniel Rescue (Qld) Inc, the applicant sought a correction of two orders relating to the costs of an application and the proceeding. The court was asked to consider whether a mistake made by the applicant’s solicitor in the form of the application was correctable under the slip rule. The applicant had been awarded costs of an application and the proceeding by orders made on 18 December 2020 and 11 January 2021, respectively. The applicant subsequently applied for a costs assessment and the appointment of a costs assessor. The court was required to determine whether the slip rule applied to correct a mistake made by the applicant’s solicitor in the form of the application, and whether the application was limited to the costs of the application or included the costs of the proceeding.

The court considered the nature of the mistake and whether it was correctable under the slip rule. The court noted that the slip rule allows for the correction of clerical errors and mistakes in orders, judgments, and other documents made by a court or legal representatives. The court found that the mistake made by the applicant’s solicitor was a clerical error and that it could be corrected under the slip rule. However, the court also found that the application was not limited to the costs of the application but also included the costs of the proceeding. The court concluded that the slip rule could be used to correct the mistake in the form of the application, but only in relation to the costs of the application.

The court ordered that the cost assessor’s certificate and the Registrar’s Order for Costs be corrected by adding “order 33 of” before “the Orders” at paragraph 4 and “order” at the relevant place, respectively. The court found that the mistake made by the applicant’s solicitor was a clerical error that could be corrected under the slip rule. However, the court also found that the application was not limited to the costs of the application but also included the costs of the proceeding. The court concluded that the slip rule could be used to correct the mistake in the form of the application, but only in relation to the costs of the application. The court did not address the issue of whether the slip rule applied to mistakes made by legal representatives.