Travia Douglas Claimant v [1] Shivoughn Warde [2] Dwight Warde [3] Nagico (National General Insurance Corporation) Defendants [ECSC]
| Jurisdiction | Saint Kitts and Nevis |
| Judge | Thomas J (AG) |
| Judgment Date | 04 July 2013 |
| Judgment citation (vLex) | [2013] ECSC J0704-2 |
| Court | High Court (Saint Kitts and Nevis) |
| Docket Number | CLAIM NO. SKBHCV2008/0120 |
| Date | 04 July 2013 |
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
EASTERN CARIBBEAN SUPREME COURT
CLAIM NO. SKBHCV2008/0120
Thomas J (AG) A decision is required as to the circumstances and the extent to which the court can correct errors or mistakes in a judgment. This arises from an Amended Notice of Application filed on 11th March 2013.
In the Application the following orders are sought:
-
(1) That time be abridged for the hearing and service of this Application;
-
(2) That the following clerical errors and/or accidental slips arising in the judgment of the Honourable Justice Errol Thomas handed down on 26th October 2012 be corrected pursuant to Civil Procedure Rules 2000 42.10(1) of the Eastern Caribbean Supreme Court and/or the Inherent Jurisdiction of this Honourable Court:
-
(a) Page 4, paragraphs 13, item (h) massage therapy 11/08 – 11/07 – 74 massages x $75 = $5,550.00
-
(b) Page 5 total medical expenses $207,173.14
-
(c) Page 14 paragraph 54 multiplier of 18 multiplicand $18,528.00 this amounts to $333,504.00
-
(d) Page 16 paragraph 74 $322.45 with a 3 year warranty to be replaced 6 times over the period of 18 years $1,934.70
-
(e) Page 17 paragraph 79 according to the submission on this item, the costs is #13,965.20 with a five year warranty to be purchased/replaced 3.3 times over 18 years equals $46,085.16
-
(f) Page 18 paragraph 85(a) handicapped equipment. Minivan $133,899.24 with a 5 year warranty to be purchased 3.3 times over 18 years equals $441,867.49.
-
-
(3) No order as to costs.
The grounds of the application are that:
-
(1) The Honourable Justice Errol L. Thomas handed down his decision on assessment of damages in the matter herein on 26th October 2012.
-
(2) Contained in the said judgment there are minor clerical errors and/or accidental slips which stand to be corrected in the said judgment.
-
(3) The court may at anytime correct an error arising in a judgment from any clerical error and/or accidental slip pursuant to Part 42.10(1) ofthe Civil Procedure Rules 2000.
The Amended Notice of Application is supported by the Affidavit of Twyla Amory who deposes as to her advice of Mr Patterson and as to what she verily believes concerning the power of the court.
Learned counsel for the applicant/claimant in his written submissions1 submits that the judge has such powers under Rule 45.10(1) of the Civil Procedure Rules. In this connection a number of authorities are cited2 in relation to the court's powers in this regard generally under English rules of court. Special reliance is placed on a dictum of Goff LJ inMutual Shipping Corporation v Bayshore Shipping Company. The dictum begins with some general observation on the courts powers to correct errors under the slip rule regarding clerical mistakes and errors in judgment or orders. His Lordship continues:
"Furthermore, there is authority that if a court makes an order in certain words, which do not have the effect which the court intended them to have that order may be corrected under the slip rule to make it accord with the court's actual intention. See:Adam and Hanley Ltd v International Maritime Supplies Co Ltd [1967] I W.L.R 445. I, for my part, can see no reason why if a court gives judgment in, for example, a certain sum, and the order is then drawn up and perfected, and it is afterward discovered that the court has, by accident, miscalculated the figure or omitted an item from it, the error in the order should not be corrected under the slip rule that is just as much an error in the order arising from an accident slip or omission as was the error in the cases I have referred to. The crucial question, under this part of the slip rule, is whether the error does indeed arise from an accidental slip or omission. As Mr. Justice Rowlatt once observed, in Sutherland & Co. v. Hannevig Brothers Ltd [1921] 1 K.B. 336 at p.341, 'here we get upon ground which is almost metaphysical'. That case itself, and Oxley v. Link [1914] 2 K.B. 734, provide examples of the limits within which the courts have confined the concept of accident in this context. Plainly, as the Master of the Rolls observed in R.v. Cripps, ex parte Muldoon [1984] 1 Q.B. 686 at p. 695, the power under the clip rule cannot be exercised to enable a tribunal 'to reconsider a final and regular decision once it has been perfected'. I do not think that it would be right for me to attempt in this judgment to define what is meant by 'accidental slip or omission' the animal is I suspect usually recognisable when it appears on the scene".
Based on the foregoing the following submissions are made by learned counsel for the applicant/claimant:
"13. We submit that this is clearly a case in which the intention of the Learned Judge was to give judgment in a certain sum in respect of various heads of damage. The corrections fall into two classes first, simple inadvertent errors in calculation and secondly the transposition of certain figures in relation to the award of damages for future medical care.
14. We submit that the fact that the application is properly made and that the circumstances of this case fit the principle is clearly demonstrated by reference to the award for future medical care which we contend was based on identifiable figures, but an error arose in using as the multiplicand the salary of the Claimant instead of the clearly stated intention of the Learned Judge that the calculation be based on the salary of her caregiver Mrs. Griffin, the Claimant's mother".
The authorities show that even before the advent of Rule 45.10(1) of CPR 2000, there existed a power in the court to correct errors pursuant to rules of court or by virtue of the inherent jurisdiction of the court.
A general overview is contained inHalsbury's Laws of Englands3 follows:
"After judgment or order has been entered there is power, both under rules of court and inherent in the judge or master who gave the judgment or order, to correct any clerical mistake in it or some error arising from any accidental slip or omission or to vary the judgment or order so as to give effect to his meaning and intentions. The power applies in the case of mistake or to accidental slips made by officers of the court…or [where] there has been a miscalculation of interest, or a mistake in a date, or accidental omission from a bill of costs, or neglect to ask for certain costs…. A judgment or order will not be varied, however, when it correctly represents what the court decided and where the court itself was wrong, nor can the operative and substantive part of the judgment be varied and a different form substituted… The discretion to amend should be exercised when something has happened since the date of the oral judgment which renders it inexpedient or inequitable to amend".
Rule 42.10(1) says that: "The court may at anytime (without appeal)...
To continue reading
Request your trial