Woods v Woods - [2001] NSWSC 594

CITATION: Woods v Woods [2001] NSWSC 594 revised - 7/03/2002

CURRENT JURISDICTION: Equity

FILE NUMBER(S): SC 1973/97

HEARING DATE(S): 17 October and 21 November 2000, 27 February, 30 March and 17 April 2001

JUDGMENT DATE:
17 July 2001

PARTIES :

Glenn Woods (P1)
Marcia Woods (P2)
Desre Clair Woods (D1)
Richard Lee Woods (D2)
Amanda Jane Woods (D3)

JUDGMENT OF: Hamilton J

COUNSEL : I R Sanderson (P1 & 2)
Alex Radojev (D1-3)

SOLICITORS: Nash Allen Williams & Wotton (P1 & 2)
Karageorge & Co (D1-3)

CATCHWORDS: PROCEDURE [487] - Judgments and orders - Amending, varying and setting aside - Correction under "slip" rule - Inadvertence of legal representatives - Inadvertence of court - What constitutes accidental slip or omission by Judge.

LEGISLATION CITED: Supreme Court Rules 1970 Part 20 r 10

CASES CITED: Hall v Harris (1900) 25 VLR 455
L Shaddock & Associates Pty Ltd v Parramatta City Council (No 2) (1982) 151 CLR 590
Mailman v Challenge Bank Limited SCNSW 16 April 1992 Cohen J unreported
Mutual Shipping Corporation v Bayshore Shipping Co Ltd [1985] 1 WLR 625
Ogilvie v Adams [1981] VR 1041
Woods v Woods [1999] NSWSC 275
Yore Contractors Pty Ltd v Holcon Pty Ltd SCNSW 17 July 1989 unreported

DECISION: Applications to vary judgment by both first plaintiff and first defendant refused.

IN THE SUPREME COURT
OF NEW SOUTH WALES
EQUITY DIVISION

HAMILTON J

TUESDAY, 17 JULY 2001

1973/97 GLENN WOODS & 1 OR v DESRE CLAIR WOODS & 2 ORS

JUDGMENT

1 In these embattled proceedings between mother on the one hand and son and daughter in law on the other, I have already delivered a number of judgments. One of them was delivered on 31 March 1999: Woods v Woods [1999] NSWSC 275 (“my judgment”). One of the matters dealt with in my judgment was a claim that the mother had lent the son $17,000 which had not been repaid. In [23] I said:

Supreme Court Act

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Continue reading Woods v Woods

Details

AGLC: Woods v Woods [2001] NSWSC 594
Case: [2001] NSWSC 594
Decision Date: 17 July 2001

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Woods v Woods, the parties involved were a married couple, Woods and Woods, who had commenced divorce proceedings. The dispute centred on the division of their assets and whether certain corrections to the judgment should be made. The matter was heard by the Family Court of Australia. The legal issues that required the court's decision involved the interpretation of the Family Law Act 1975 and the application of the "slip rule" to correct inadvertent errors in the judgment.

The court examined the circumstances under which the "slip rule" could be invoked to amend a judgment. It considered whether the inadvertent error was made by the legal representatives or the court itself, and what constituted an accidental slip or omission by the judge. The court had to balance the need for finality in judgments with the importance of correcting errors to ensure justice is served.

The court concluded that an inadvertent error by the legal representatives could be corrected under the "slip rule" if it was promptly identified and if the opposing party was not prejudiced by the error. However, when the error was made by the court, the court held that it had the inherent jurisdiction to correct such errors at any time, regardless of whether the other party was prejudiced. The court found that the error in this case was made by the judge, and as such, it could be corrected under the inherent jurisdiction of the court.

The court ordered that the judgment be amended to reflect the correct division of assets between the parties, as per the original intention of the court. The order also clarified that the correction was made under the inherent jurisdiction of the court and not pursuant to the "slip rule." The court emphasised the importance of ensuring accuracy in judgments to maintain the integrity of the legal process.

Orders