Rushton & Anor v Worcester City Council

On a restoration application alleging arithmetic error or misunderstanding in an appellate judgment, the court may re-examine the judgment alongside the appeal arguments and relevant concessions. If that review reveals no error, the application is refused. The court may nevertheless clarify wording which risks misunderstanding, provided the clarification does not alter the substantive result.

This was a restored matter arising from an appeal from the County Court at Worcester, before Mr Recorder Rundell. After the Court of Appeal’s judgment had been handed down and the order drawn up, the appellants alleged errors of arithmetic or a misunderstanding of the damages calculation. The court reconsidered the appeal materials, including concessions made by the Council, and examined wording in paragraph 76 of its earlier judgment. The central issue was whether the judgment contained an error requiring correction.

Application refused.

1. Per Lord Justice Potter, the court reconsidered the skeleton arguments used on the appeal, particularly the Council’s skeleton argument, together with the matters raised by counsel and the Council’s concessions concerning the calculation of damages. The court was satisfied that the earlier judgment contained no arithmetic error or misunderstanding.
2. The apparent difficulty concerned the wording of the second sentence of paragraph 76 of the earlier judgment. Read with the first line of that paragraph and other passages in the judgment, the wording made sufficient sense. For the avoidance of any possible error, however, the court stated that it should be amended in any report to reflect that interest on mortgage repayments and interest on rent were to be treated as self-cancelling, with £4,116.07 deducted from the damages awarded.
3. The clarification did not alter the outcome. The application was refused with costs, those costs to be set off against the costs eventually determined to be payable by the Council in respect of the appeal. The costs order was not part of the judgment.

• Court of Appeal (Civil Division): The restored application alleging errors in the earlier appellate judgment was refused with costs.
• County Court at Worcester: The appeal arose from proceedings before Mr Recorder Rundell. No citation or outcome of the County Court decision is stated.