(Hong Kong) At trial, the successful party had omitted to ask the court to award interest. Despite some delay, the court had acceded to the request to amend the order under the slip rule to add an appropriate award. The paying party appealed.
Held: The appeal failed. The inherent discretion to amend an order under the so called ‘slip rule’ should be used cautiously to encourage diligence by a party’s legal representatives and to give effect to the overarching public interest in the finality of litigation. Nevertheless, the rule authorises the court to make an order which it failed to make as a result of the accidental omission of counsel to ask for it. The slip rule may be invoked irrespective of whether the order has been drawn up, passed and entered.
Undue delay is not itself a ground for refusing to correct a judgment under the ‘slip rule’, at any rate where the delay has not caused the opposite party to omit to take or to take any step which he otherwise would have taken or refrained from taking
Judges:
Lord Wilberforce, Viscount Dilhorne, Lord Pearson
Citations:
[1972] UKPC 23, [1973] 1 All ER 569, [1973] 1 WLR 300
Links:
Citing:
Applied – Re Inchcape 1942
The court had been called upon to decide the domicile of Lord Inchcape at the date of his death. Counsel then asked for the costs of all parties to be paid by the estate. However, costs had been incurred before the issue of proceedings and these . .
See Also – Tak Ming Company Limited v Yee Sang Metal Supplies Company PC 5-Oct-1971
. .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Commonwealth
Updated: 19 September 2022; Ref: scu.444440