Wolter and Wolter

In *Wolter & Wolter* [2014] FamCA 307, the Family Court of Australia considered an application by Ms Wolter (the wife) to correct a perceived typographical error in property settlement orders made on 21 December 2012. Mr Wolter (the husband) opposed the application, arguing for a broader reconsideration of the orders. The central issue was whether the court had the power under Rule 17.02 of the *Family Law Rules 2004* (Cth) to rectify an error in the orders.

The court was required to determine if the alleged error fell within the ambit of Rule 17.02, which permits the correction of clerical mistakes and accidental slips or omissions to ensure that an order accurately reflects the court's intention or the parties' agreement. The wife contended there was a typographical error, while the husband sought to reopen the entire property settlement. The court examined the history of the orders concerning the sale of a property at D, noting that the order in question was one upon which the parties had agreed, rather than a proposed order from the court's reasons.

Justice Ryan found that the parties had mistakenly agreed that order 13(f) of the 10 May 2012 consent orders should continue, rather than order 13(e), and had mistakenly discharged order 13(e). This constituted a mutual mistake arising from an accidental slip or omission, rather than a simple typographical error. The court applied the principles established in cases such as *Gould v Vaggelas* and *Symes v Commonwealth*, which confirm the court's power to correct errors to avoid injustice and give effect to the parties' intentions. The court concluded that it was necessary to make an additional order to give proper effect to the property settlement orders.

The court ordered that order 7 of the final orders made on 21 December 2012 be amended pursuant to Rule 17.02 of the *Family Law Rules 2004* (Cth) by replacing the reference to "13(f)" with "13(e)". This amendment was intended to rectify the accidental slip and ensure the orders accurately reflected the parties' agreement regarding the security for a loan on the C property.