Wardle v Agricultural and Rural Finance Pty Ltd (No 3)

In *Wardle v Agricultural and Rural Finance Pty Ltd (No 3)*, the Court of Appeal of New South Wales considered an application to amend orders previously made by the Court. The applicants sought to correct an error in the title of the proceedings and to insert new orders concerning the apportionment of costs between the various appellants and respondents.

The primary legal issues before the Court were whether it retained jurisdiction to hear and determine an application under the slip rule following the retirement of one of its members, and whether the errors and omissions identified by the applicants fell within the ambit of the slip rule. The applicants contended that the existing orders contained a demonstrable error and that the Court had the power to correct it.

The Court determined that the retirement of a judge did not affect the Court's jurisdiction to amend its own orders under the slip rule. It reasoned that the slip rule exists to correct manifest errors or omissions that do not involve a substantive alteration of the judgment. Applying this principle, the Court found that the proposed amendments to the title and the insertion of specific cost orders were necessary to accurately reflect the Court's intended judgment and to clarify the apportionment of costs amongst the parties.

The Court ordered that the orders made on 30 November 2012 be amended to correct the name of the First Appellant and to insert new provisions detailing the respondents' liability for one-ninth of the total costs of the appellants, with specific percentages allocated to appellants other than Mr Holmes and Mr Wardle. The motion was otherwise dismissed, and the respondents were ordered to pay 75 per cent of the applicants' costs on the motion.