Concorde Engineering Company Ltd v Bus Atha Cliath/Dublin Bus

• Jurisdiction: Ireland
• Court: High Court
• Judge: McCracken J.
• Judgment Date: 01 January 1996
• Neutral Citation: 1996 WJSC-HC 410
• Date: 01 January 1996
• Docket Number: Record No. 2609 P/92,[1992 No. 2609P]

1996 WJSC-HC 410

THE HIGH COURT

Record No. 2609 P/92

CONCORDE ENGINEERING CO LTD v. BUS ATHA CLIATH

BETWEEN

CONCORDE ENGINEERING COMPANY LIMITED TRADING AS CONCORDE MANUFACTURING

PLAINTIFF

AND

BUS ATHA CLIAITH/DUBLIN BUS

DEFENDANT

Citations:

RSC O.28

RSC O.28 r11

TAK MING CO V YEE SANG METAL SUPPLIERS CO 1973 1 AER 569

INCHCAPR, IN RE 1942 CH 394

BELVILLE HOLDINGS V REVENUE COMMISSIONERS 1994 1 ILRM 29

AINSWORTH V WILDING 1896 1 CH 673

COURTS ACT 1981

Synopsis:

PRACTICE

Order

Amendment - Court - Jurisdiction - Absence - Claim for damages and interest - Judgment held defendant liable to pay specified sum as damages to plaintiff - Plaintiff failed to remind court of interest claim - Judgment for damages entered - Perfected order of court did not refer to interest - Court ~functus officio~ - Refusal of court to amend order - Rules of the Superior Courts, 1986, order 28, r. 11 - (1992/2609 P - McCracken J. - 19/12/95) - [1995] 3 IR 212 - [1996] 1 ILRM 533

|Concorde Engineering Co. Ltd. v. Bus Atha Cliath|

1 Judgment of McCracken J. given the 19th day of December 1995 .

2 This was an Action in which the Plaintiff claimed damages for negligence against the Defendant arising out of an accident in which a bus, the property of the Defendant, went out of control and collided with the Plaintiff's premises causing serious damage. The case was heard by me on 2nd and 3rd February, 1995 and I gave Judgment on 8th February, 1995 for the Plaintiff in the sum of £67,100 and costs.

3 The Statement of Claim in the proceedings included a claim for interest in accordance with the provisions of the Courts Act, 1981, but no argument was addressed at the hearing or after the Judgment in relation to the question of interest. No award of interest was made and the Order was perfected on 10th February, 1995.

4 By Notice of Motion dated 8th November, 1995 the Plaintiff now seeks to have the Order amended either pursuant to Order 28 of the Rules of the Superior Courts or under the inherent jurisdiction of the Court, to include a **???query?????? for interest on the principle sum awarded. The Motion is opposed by the Defendants on the grounds that Order 28 does not apply in these circumstances, and that it would be wrong for the Court to exercise any inherent jurisdiction to amend the Order, as the Defendant is entitled to know with certainty the amount of the award against it.

5 Order 28 Rule 11 reads:-

"Clerical mistakes in Judgments or Orders, or errors arising therein from any accidental slip or omission, may at any time be corrected by the Court on Motion without an appeal."

6 In the present case there can be no question of there having been a clerical mistake in the Order, and therefore the Plaintiff must satisfy me that there was an accidental slip or omission within the meaning of the Rule, and also that this is a proper case in which to amend the Order, as the Rule seemed to make it quite clear that any such amendment is discretionary. Mr. Herbert on behalf of the Plaintiff has cited two cases to support his claim...