• Lawyers in Sydney
• Lawyers in Melbourne
• Lawyers in Brisbane
• Lawyers in Perth
• Family lawyers
• Employment lawyers
• Criminal lawyers
• Wills and estates lawyers
• Find a lawyer

The judgment says that the solicitors for the appellant/cross-respondent informed the Court about the omission after publication ([3]). The Court described the omission as “plainly an error” that could be corrected under r 6906 of the Court Procedures Rules 2006 (ACT), which it called the “slip” rule ([3]).

The Court then set out the orders it considered it should have made and made them ([4]). It entered judgment for The Owners – Units Plan No 1917, the respondent/cross-appellant, against Michael Koundouris, the appellant/cross-respondent, for $1,471,235.49. That sum comprised $1,068,397 in damages and $402,838.49 in interest.

The orders also dealt with costs. For the primary proceedings, Mr Koundouris was ordered to pay costs on a party and party basis up to 23 June 2015, and on a solicitor and client basis from 24 June 2015. The amount was to be agreed or assessed. For the appeal proceedings, he was ordered to pay costs on a party and party basis, also in an amount to be agreed or assessed ([4]).

The decision is therefore narrow in subject matter. It identifies an omission from the Court’s own published orders, explains the procedural basis for correction, and records the corrected orders. It does not reconsider the underlying liability or explain how the damages, interest or earlier costs determinations were reached.

Why the court decided this way

The reasoning is concise. The Court identified three steps. First, its published orders had omitted the agreed damages and interest orders ([2]). Second, it was informed of the omission by the appellant/cross-respondent’s solicitors ([3]). Third, it concluded that the omission was plainly an error capable of correction under r 6906 ([3]).

The Court’s stated characterisation of the error matters. It did not describe a dispute about what the earlier decision meant, or a request to change the substance of a contested determination. Instead, it treated the missing provisions as an omission from the orders that accompanied the published reasons. Its formulation, “The orders which the Court should have made, and now makes” ([4]), links the correction to the orders it considered should have appeared in the first place.

The reasons do not reproduce r 6906 or set out a general test for applying it. Accordingly, the judgment supports a limited account of the rule: the Court considered this particular omission to be a plain error that the rule permitted it to correct. It does not, on its own, establish how the rule applies to other kinds of mistake, contested applications, or proposed changes to substantive orders.

The correction also made the monetary and costs orders explicit. The damages and interest figures were specified separately, as was their total. The costs orders identified different bases for the primary proceedings before and after 24 June 2015, and a party and party basis for the appeal proceedings ([4]). The decision does not explain why those costs bases or the date dividing them were selected. Those matters appear in the orders being corrected, rather than in the Court’s reasoning in this short decision.

Before and after state of the law

The judgment does not survey the law before the decision, compare competing interpretations of the slip rule, or announce a new general doctrine. The legal point it expressly makes is confined to the correction before it: the omitted agreed damages and interest orders were a “plain” error, and r 6906 permitted correction ([3]).

Before the correction, the orders published with the Court’s 24 October 2017 reasons omitted the agreed damages and interest provisions ([2]). After the correction, the Court’s orders included judgment for $1,471,235.49, comprising the specified damages and interest amounts, together with the stated costs orders ([4]). This describes the procedural change recorded by this decision, not a general account of how the slip rule affects the law in other cases.

The judgment cites r 6906 of the Court Procedures Rules 2006 (ACT), but does not set out its wording. It also does not explain whether the rule is limited to accidental slips or omissions, or discuss any boundary between correcting an omission and substantively varying an order. Those questions cannot be answered from this decision alone.

The header identifies the earlier Court of Appeal decision, [2017] ACTCA 36, and the underlying ACT Supreme Court decision, The Owners – Units Plan No 1917 v Koundouris [2016] ACTSC 96. The body of this decision refers to the 2017 Court of Appeal decision as the original decision from which the costs dispute arose ([1]). It does not discuss the reasoning of the Supreme Court decision or state how the slip-rule decision changes any rule from those earlier proceedings.

Key passages with plain-English translation

At [1], the Court says it had published reasons on 24 October 2017 concerning “a dispute on costs that had arisen following its original decision.” In plain English, this decision followed an earlier appeal decision and addressed a costs dispute arising afterwards. It was not described as a reconsideration of the original appeal.

At [2], the Court records that the orders accompanying the published reasons “omitted to include the agreed orders as to damages and interest payable.” In plain English, the Court’s published orders were missing provisions that had been agreed about damages and interest. The judgment does not say that the parties were disputing those amounts in this correction proceeding.

At [3], the Court says: “The omission is plainly an error which is able to be corrected under rule 6906 of the Court Procedures Rules 2006 (ACT) (the ‘slip’ rule).” This is the central statement of reasoning. In plain English, the Court considered the missing provisions to be an obvious mistake that the cited procedural rule allowed it to fix. The judgment does not give a fuller definition of that rule.

At [4], the Court introduces the corrected orders by saying, “The orders which the Court should have made, and now makes, are as follows”. This signals that it was correcting the orders to include the omitted provisions. The resulting orders state the total judgment sum, its components, and the relevant costs bases and periods.

Taken together, these passages show a direct connection between the identified omission and the remedy. The Court identified what had been left out, stated that the slip rule allowed correction, and then made the specified orders.

What fact patterns trigger this precedent

The decision is most directly relevant to a fact pattern in which a court’s published orders omit an agreed provision and the court considers that omission to be a plain error. The particular omitted provisions here concerned damages and interest, and the correction was made under the ACT rule identified as r 6906 ([2]–[4]).

The decision also shows that the Court was alerted to the omission after publication, by the solicitors for one of the parties ([3]). But the judgment does not state that this is a required procedure, set out formal requirements for bringing an omission to the Court’s attention, or describe a contested application. It should not be read as establishing those matters.

The judgment is not a detailed precedent on correcting every mistaken order. It says nothing about an order whose terms are disputed, a proposed change to a substantive decision, a mistake in the reasons rather than the orders, or the application of a different jurisdiction’s procedural rule. It does not explain how a court would distinguish a correctable omission from an impermissible change in substance. Those questions require sources beyond this decision.

For lawyers, accountants and compliance professionals reading the case as a record of a judgment, the precise features to note are the omission from the published orders, the Court’s “plainly an error” characterisation, the express reliance on r 6906, and the replacement orders at [4]. The judgment’s narrow reasoning cautions against attributing broader propositions to it.

How later courts have treated it

The supplied judgment contains no account of later court decisions and no statements about how later courts treated its reasoning. The material available here therefore does not establish whether later courts applied, followed, distinguished or questioned this decision.

The only other case expressly identified in the judgment’s body is Koundouris v The Owners – Units Plan 1917 [2017] ACTCA 36, described as the original decision preceding the costs dispute ([1]). The header also lists The Owners – Units Plan No 1917 v Koundouris [2016] ACTSC 96 as the decision under the Court of Appeal. Neither reference provides evidence of later treatment of the 26 October 2017 correction decision.

The decision’s short length and case-specific formulation are relevant when describing its precedential significance. The Court applied the slip rule to the omission before it, but did not set out a comprehensive test or discuss other authorities. Any account of subsequent judicial treatment would need to be checked against later judgments, which are not included in the supplied text.

Still-open questions

Several questions remain unanswered by this judgment. It does not reproduce the text of r 6906, explain the rule’s complete requirements, or discuss its limits. It therefore cannot, by itself, answer how the rule applies where the alleged error is disputed or where the proposed correction might affect the substance of the decision.

The reasons do not explain the history of the omitted orders, beyond stating that they were agreed orders concerning damages and interest. They do not describe how the agreed figures were calculated, why the total was composed of those amounts, or the basis for the different costs orders. Those subjects belong to the earlier proceedings or the earlier costs reasons, which this decision does not analyse.

The decision also does not describe any objection to the correction, any evidence considered, or any procedural requirements for notifying parties. It records only that the solicitors informed the Court and that the Court found the omission plainly erroneous ([3]). No broader procedural requirements should be inferred from that account alone.

Finally, the judgment provides no information about later treatment. Whether later courts have adopted or limited its approach is unresolved on the material supplied. The safe source-grounded conclusion is that this Court corrected this particular omission under r 6906 and made the orders stated at [4].

This is general legal information, not legal advice. Zoe can make mistakes. Before acting on this, relying on it, or using any draft, have a qualified Australian lawyer check it.