Griffith v John Fairfax Publications (No 2) [2004] NSWCA 388 (27 October 2004)

Last Updated: 2 November 2004

NEW SOUTH WALES COURT OF APPEAL

CITATION: Griffith v John Fairfax Publications (No. 2) [2004] NSWCA 388

FILE NUMBER(S):

40188/04

HEARING DATE(S): On papers

JUDGMENT DATE: 27/10/2004

PARTIES:

Jeremy Norman Griffith

Foundation for Humanity's Adulthood

Timothy John Macartney-Snape

The Persons Named in Schedule "A" to the Notice of Appeal with Appointment

John Fairfax Publications Pty Limited

David Milikan

William Anthony McClelland t/as "Cultaware"

JUDGMENT OF: Sheller JA Tobias JA Young CJ in Eq

LOWER COURT JURISDICTION: Supreme Court

LOWER COURT FILE NUMBER(S): SC 20301/01

LOWER COURT JUDICIAL OFFICER: Levine J

COUNSEL:

A: K P Smark

1R & 2R: R Lancaster / N Owens

R3: P Menadue

SOLICITORS:

A: Schweizer Kobras, Sydney

1R & 2R: Freehills, Sydney

3R: William Anthony McClelland

CATCHWORDS:

JUDGMENTS - Error in orders - varying order

LEGISLATION CITED:

Supreme Court Rules 1970

DECISION:

That paragraph 56(g) of the judgment of 20 October 2004 be varied by deleting therefrom the words "first and second respondents" and inserting in lieu the word "appellants".

JUDGMENT:

IN THE SUPREME COURT

OF NEW SOUTH WALES

COURT OF APPEAL

CA 40188/04

SC 20301/01

SHELLER JA

TOBIAS JA

YOUNG CJ in Eq

Wednesday 26 October 2004

JEREMY NORMAN GRIFFITH & ORS v JOHN FAIRFAX PUBLICATIONS PTY LTD & ORS (No. 2)

Supplementary Judgment

1 THE COURT: Since delivering judgment in this matter on 20 October 2004, counsel for the appellants and the solicitor for the first and second respondents have brought to our attention an error in [56(g)] of the judgment wherein an order was made that the first and second respondents pay the costs of the appeal with respect to the first matter complained of.

2 The appellants and the first and second respondents agree that this is in error as the appellants were unsuccessful with respect to the first matter complained of as a consequence whereof it is they who should pay the costs of the appeal with respect to that matter.

3 The Court has been invited by those parties to correct the mistake pursuant to Part 20 r 10(1) of the Supreme Court Rules 1970 and to do so without any further hearing.

4 It is clear that an error has been made in the order set forth in [56(g)] of the judgment and that it should be corrected in accordance with the request of the appellants counsel and the first and second respondents' solicitor. Accordingly, the Court orders that [56(g)] of the judgment of 20 October 2004 be varied by deleting therefrom the words "first and second respondents" and inserting in lieu the word "appellants".

**********

LAST UPDATED: 02/11/2004