EASTERN SUBURBS HARDWARE PTY LTD v LEVY SUPREME COURT OF NEW SOUTH WALES COURT OF APPEAL KirBy P, HOPE and MCHUGH JJA 27 October 1988, 27 October 1988 [1988] NSWCA 39 PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE — orders — disparity between order pronounced and order entered — unclarity of order — desirability of providing relief to the party affected — new orders made. JUDGMENTS AND ORDERS — disparity between order as pronounced and order entered from Associate's note — desirability of clarification — fresh orders made. Supreme Court Act 1970 s46. ORDERS 1. The Court extends time within which the opponent must comply with O.5 as entered, until Tuesday 1 November 1988 at 4 pm 2. Costs of the additional motion, costs in the appeal. Kirby P On 10 October 1988 there was before me, sitting alone and exercising the power of the Court under s46 of the Supreme court Act 1970, a hard fought motion for a stay. At the end of the orders made I pronounced the following order: "(5) That the claimant within 14 days provide to the opponent such information as it reasonably required concerning the assets and other relevant information about the financial position of the claimant and of Mr and Mrs White." The parties interpreted that order differently. The claimant on the additional motion today interpreted it as an obligation that the information should be supplied within 14 days of order. The opponent to the present additional motion interpreted it as a requirement that first he be given reasonable notice of the information that was reasonably to be required. The order that was finally entered by the Court was taken from the Associate's notes. It was: "(5) The claimant must within 14 days give the opponent reasonable information as to the assets and other relevant information as to the position of Mr and Mrs White." The confusion on the part of the parties and their different interpretations of the provision are reasonable in the circumstances. The order, even in its context, lacked clarity. As well, there was a disparity between the order finally entered, the order as it was first formulated by me, and the order as finally pronounced by me. The confusion has led to a failure on the part of the present opponent to comply with the order, as entered. It is desirable to relieve the opponent of the consequence of the breach of the order and to make plain the opponent's obligation to supply the necessary information without further delay. The Court will extend the time within which the present opponent must comply with order five as entered, until Tuesday 1 November 1988 at 4 pm The confusion having arisen out of a disparity between the order as entered and the order as pronounced, it is appropriate, and the parties do not contest this, that the costs incurred by reason of this additional motion should be costs in the appeal. That is what the Court orders. Counsel for the Claimant: P Biscoe 2 UNREPORTED JUDGMENTS Solicitors for the Claimant: Freehill Hollingdale and Page Counsel for the Opponent: C Barry Solicitors for the Opponent: Heidtman and Co