Alliance & Leicester Plc v Godolphin

A court may use the slip rule to correct a perfected order where the document fails accurately to record the order the judge intended to make. Such a correction is not a variation of the substantive order. The rule may therefore be used to amend a costs order where the judge intended the claimant’s costs to be added to the security, although the drawn order stated that there was no order as to costs. A party must also be given a fair opportunity to make submissions on costs. Where a distinct issue cannot fairly be determined on the material available, the court may adjourn it for further written and oral submissions.

Alliance & Leicester Plc v Godolphin arose from mortgage possession proceedings in the Truro County Court. Judgment had been entered for the claimant, with possession ordered and approximately £95,000 awarded for arrears of capital and interest.

The County Court initially ordered no costs, but later amended the order so that the claimant’s costs were added to the security. Mr Godolphin sought an extension of time and permission to challenge that amendment. He also argued that the judgment sum included interest or arrears relating to three accounts in respect of which the claimant had not proceeded. The central issues were whether the costs order could be corrected under the slip rule and whether the account-related issue could be determined on the material before the Court of Appeal.

1. Extension of time. The court granted Mr Godolphin an extension of time, taking account of the delay, his difficulty obtaining the transcript and the fact that he was acting in person.
2. Costs order. The functus officio objection failed. Under CPR 40.12, as contained in the Civil Procedure Rules 1998, the County Court could correct an accidental slip or omission in a judgment or order at any time. The original order did not accurately reflect the order the judge intended to make. In the context of mortgage possession proceedings, the judge had intended the claimant’s costs to be added to the security. Correcting the drawn order to express that intention did not vary the substantive order.
3. There was no procedural unfairness. After the claimant’s submission on costs, Mr Godolphin had been invited to make any submission he wished. His complaint that he had not been heard on costs therefore had no substance.
4. Accounts 3, 5 and 6. The claimant had stopped pursuing the claims concerning those accounts, while not conceding that the relevant default notices were defective. It was unclear whether the approximately £95,000 judgment included interest or other sums attributable to them. The court therefore adjourned this limited issue rather than determine it finally.

The costs appeal was dismissed. The interest-related issue was adjourned so that the claimant could provide written submissions within 14 days, after which the matter was to be restored for further submissions and final determination.

• Truro County Court: Judgment was given for Alliance & Leicester in mortgage possession proceedings. The defendant was ordered to give possession and pay approximately £95,000 in arrears. The original order stated that there was no order as to costs, but it was later amended to provide for the claimant’s costs to be added to the security.
• Court of Appeal (Civil Division), [2001] EWCA Civ 1738: The challenge to the costs amendment was rejected. The separate issue concerning sums allegedly relating to accounts 3, 5 and 6 was adjourned for further submissions.