New South Wales Court of Appeal CITATION : Boele v Norsemeter [2003] NSWCA 173 HEARING DATE(S) : 25 June 2003 JUDGMENT DATE : 25 June 2003 JUDGMENT OF : Handley JA at 1 DECISION : Order (5) in the judgment of Handley, Beazley and Giles JJA dated 13 November 2002 is amended under SCR Pt 20 r 10(1) to read; That the respondent pay the appellant's costs of the application for leave to appeal and the appeal and have a certificate under the Suitors Fund Act if qualified. Pieter Boele PARTIES : v Norsemeter Holding AS FILE NUMBER(S) : CA 40476/02 COUNSEL : Appellant: A W Street SC Respondent: Dr A S Bell SOLICITORS : Appellant: Hogan Geikie Poole Respondent: Gadens LOWER COURT Supreme Court - Equity Division JURISDICTION : LOWER COURT ED 50173/01 FILE NUMBER(S) : LOWER COURT Einstein J JUDICIAL OFFICER : IN THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW SOUTH WALES COURT OF APPEAL 40476/02 HANDLEY JA 25 June 2003 PIETER BOELE v NORSEMETER HOLDING AS Judgment 1 HANDLEY JA: On 13 November a Court comprising Beazley, Giles JJA and myself delivered judgment in this matter, allowed the appeal and pronounced five orders. Order 5 read: "Appellant pay respondent's costs of the application for leave to appeal and the appeal and have a certificate under the Suitors Fund Act if qualified". 2 As a result of the Court's attention being directed recently to the form of this order, it became apparent that the order as pronounced was the result of an error arising from an accidental slip or omission within SCR Pt 20 r 10(1) and within the inherent jurisdiction of the Court to rectify its records to ensure that they correctly reflect the intention of the Court. 3 It is the proper case to amend the order and I will substitute in lieu of order 5 an order that the respondent pay the appellant's costs of the application for leave to appeal and the appeal and have a certificate under the Suitors Fund Act if qualified. 4 Costs of the appearance this morning are not asked for and I will simply direct the amendment of the orders of the Court. ****** Last Modified: 07/07/2003 DISCLAIMER - Every effort has been made to comply with suppression orders or statutory provisions prohibiting publication that may apply to this judgment or decision. The onus remains on any person using material in the judgment or decision to ensure that the intended use of that material does not breach any such order or provision. Further enquiries may be directed to the Registry of the Court or Tribunal in which it was generated.