Stack v AGL Gas Company (NSW) Pty LTd & Ors (No 2)

HIS HONOUR : This is an application made pursuant to Pt 20 r 10 which is colloquially known as the ‘slip rule’.

The application, which is in fact non controversial in its content, is to amend the judgment to correct an arithmetical error. There was no doubt that the error occurred and, in my view, there is no doubt that the rule applies.

Accordingly, I shall amend para 27 of the judgment delivered on 16 May 2003 by inserting in its lieu the paragraph which has been handed up and headed “Proposed Amended Paragraph 27”. This means the judgment total of $4, 093, 089 is amended to total $4, 373, 089.

The judgment sum will be in the amount of $4, 373, 089.

Judgment was delivered on 16 May 2003. The plaintiff submits that interest should run from that date. As it happens the period in which liability for interest will crystallise has not yet been completed.

On behalf of the defendants it was submitted that because of the complexity of the number of funds, upon which the defendants had to draw, to satisfy the judgment, that the slip rule, while applying, should not be used to increase the defendants’ liability. The necessity for obtaining instructions and, indeed, having a certified copy of judgment apparently is of the essence of that application.

Under s 95 of the Supreme Court Act , the court has a discretion over interest payments.

In these circumstances I am of the view that what I should do is to not accede to either parties submission but to make the judgment run from 23 May 2003 which will give the defendants time to satisfy its technical requirements and yet assist in making certain, if one can, that the plaintiff gets paid promptly.