clr/1981/1981_1_645.pdf

(1981)Uponappealagainstboth'the validityof the order made on December 12, 1977for the release of the cargo and the validity of~the~~order made on January'lA, 19-78Γ/or"the'correction 'of the record: Held, thatthis was a case of an errorarising from anaccidental 5 slip or omission which was rightly corrected, under Order 25, rule 6, of the Civil Procedure Rules, and the inherent power of the Court, by the order of the.Judge dated January^24, 1978, so that the^said record was then made to form part of the files of both'the aforementioned two actions; that until such corre- 10 ction was effected the record of December 12, 1977, did not, and could not, be treated as forming part of the file of action No. 232/77; therefore, "it was not possible for the Registry of this Court to draw up any order in action No. 232/77 on the basis of-the order whieh .the Judge made on^December 12, 15 1577-; consequently, the "drawn .up1 order", dated December 12, 1977, which was, actually, drawn up on January 9, 1978, and which, as a matter of fact, .was.never signed by".the Judge, was a nullity, and there was no need to order on January 24, 1978, any corrections of that drawn up order, as a new order 20 ought to be drawn up in action No. 232/77 on thebasis of the corrected relevant record; in the result both appeals are deter­ mined accordingly, and are allowed to that extent, with no order as to their costs. Appeals partly allowed. 25 Appeals. Appeals by plaintiffs against the order of a Judge of the Supreme Court (Hadjianastassiou, J.) dated the 12th December, 1977 (Adm. Act. No. 235/77) regarding the release; on certain terms, of the respondent cargo and against the validity of an 30 order dated 24th January, 1978 by, means of which certain corrections were made to a drawn up on the 9th January, 1978, order which had been based on the aforesaid order of 12th December,

1. - T. Papadopoulos with M. Vassiliou and P. loannkies, for the appellants. 35 C. Eroto'critou with J. Erotocritou, for the respondent. Cur. adv. vult. 646 1 C.L.R. Katarina Shipping v. Ship "Poly" TRIANTAFYLLIDESP.read thefollowingjudgment ofthe Court. Inthesetwoappeals,whichwereheardtogether inviewoftheir nature, the appellants challenge the validity of an order made, in the first instance, by a Judge of this Court onDecember 12, 5 1977, regarding the release on certain terms of the respondent cargo—which was the defendant cargo in admiralty action No. 232/77—and, also, the validity of an order made by the same Judge of this Court on January 24, 1978, by means of which certain corrections were made to a drawn up, on January 9, 10 1978, order, which had besn based on the aforesaid order of December 12,
2. At all material timesthere waspendingbefore thesameJudge of this Court a related admiralty action, No. 235/77, in which both theappellant inthe present appealsand the ship "POLY" 15 were defendants. We have heard very lengthy and elaborate arguments by counsel for the parties before we have reached the following conclusions, from which there appear too, to the necessary in our view extent, the relevant procedural events: 20 On December 12, 1977,counsel, who were the same in both admiralty actions Nos. 232/77 and 235/77,appeared before the trial Judge, who was dealing with both these actions, for the purpose of obtaining a date for the continuation of the proceedings in action No. 235/77, and, on that occasion, they made 25 certain statements concerningthe release on terms of the defendant cargo in action No. 232/77, in which judgment on the issue of the continuance in force of the order of arrest of the said cargo had already been reserved. On the basis of these statementsthetrialJudgeproceededtomakeanorderbyconsent 30 for the release of the cargo. When the relevant record, which had initially been taken down by the Judge in his own handwriting, was typed, there was inserted at the top of it the title and number of case No. 235/77 only; such record was then signed by the Judge. 35 There is no doubt that it was intended both by the parties and the Judge that such record should become part of the files of both the said actions, Nos. 232/77 and 235/77, to the extent to which each constituent part of that record related, respectively, to either action. 647 Triantafyludes P. KatarinaShippingv.Ship"Poly"

(1981)We, therefore, are of the view that this is a case of an error arising from an accidental slip or omission which wasrightly corrected, under Order 25,rule 6, of the Civil Procedure Rules, andthe inherent power of the Court, by the orderof theJudge dated January 24, 1978, sothat the said recordwas then made 5 toform part ofthefilesofboththeaforementioned twoactions. Until such correction was effected, on January 24, 1978, the record of December 12, 1977, did not, and could not, be treated asformingpart ofthefileofactionNo.232/77;therefore, it was not possible for the Registry of this Court to draw up 10 any order in action No. 232/77on the basis ofthe order which theJudgemadeonDecember 12,·1977;consequently,the"drawn up order", dated December 12, 1977, which was, actually, drawn up on January 9, 1978,and which, as a matter of fact, was never signed by the Judge, was a nulhty, and therewas no 15 needtoorder onJanuary24,1978,anycorrectionsofthatdrawn up order, as a new order ought to be drawn up in action No. 232/77 on the basis of the corrected relevant record. In the result both these appeals are determined accordingly, and are allowed to that extent, with no order as to their costs. 20 Appealspartly allowed; noorder as to costs. 648