Description
The applicant applied to correct a judgment Order so as to reduce the sum awarded to the respondent. After the Order had been made the applicants solicitors wrote to the respondent's solicitors informing them that the Order failed to take account of payments previously made such that the sum fell to be reduced which was strongly contested by the respondent. The instant application only sought to correct part of the court's Order. The slip rule could not be used to enable the court to have second thoughts or to add to its original order. However, it was possible under the slip rule to amend an order to give effect to the intention of the court. The disputed sum was an arithmetical error which originated in the manner in which the respondent's counsel presented its final submissions to the court and which the respondent's counsel failed to notice at the relevant time. Thereafter, the error was perpetuated through into the draft order which was eventually signed by both parties' counsel and which became the cou rt's order. The result was that the inclusion of certain figures in the order was properly described as an accidental slip or omission in a judgment or order. The fact that the slip or omission might have arisen from counsel's accidental omission did not mean that r.40.12 was not engaged or that there was any bar to the exercise of the discretion under the slip rule.
