- Bookmark
- Share
- CaseIQ
Wales v Charleton and Ors (Approved)
Factual and Procedural Background
The Plaintiff instituted proceedings against Company A and two receivers appointed by Company A, challenging Company A's title to a debt incurred with Company B and the related mortgage, and challenging the receivers' conduct. Company A has separate, linked proceedings seeking judgment against the Plaintiff and possession. The Plaintiff obtained an interlocutory injunction and the case has been case-managed thereafter. The Plaintiff brought a motion under Order 31 Rule 18 RSC to inspect two original documents described in the motion as a deed of novation of receivers dated 19 July 2019 and a global deed of transfer dated 14 July 2019. Judge Cregan delivered judgment on 31 July 2024 directing production of the originals for inspection; that judgment was perfected by an order on 10 October 2024 and further interlocutory orders followed (including directions on redactions and inspection timings). On 24 October 2024 the originals were produced in court. In early November 2024 errors were identified: the originals were dated 14 June 2019, not the July dates stated in the motion, affidavits, the 31 July 2024 judgment and subsequent orders. The Defendants applied to amend the judgment and orders under Order 28 Rule 11 RSC (Slip Rule) or, alternatively, Order 28 Rule 12 RSC (and relied on the court's inherent jurisdiction). Judge Cregan delivered a judgment on 20 May 2026 addressing those applications and ordering amendments to reflect the correct dates of 14 June 2019 for both documents.
Legal Issues Presented
- Whether the incorrect dates in the judgment and orders amounted to a "clerical mistake" or "accidental slip or omission" such that they were correctable under Order 28 Rule 11 RSC (the Slip Rule).
- Whether the court had power to amend its judgment and interlocutory orders under Order 28 Rule 12 RSC (or the court's inherent jurisdiction) to correct errors in the recorded dates of the two documents.
- Whether the orders in question were interlocutory or final (i.e. whether the court was functus officio in relation to varying them).
Arguments of the Parties
Defendants' Arguments
- The originals of both documents were dated 14 June 2019 and any reference to other dates was erroneous.
- The erroneous dates resulted from administrative/human errors (including an incorrect version circulated from a receiver's office and a mis-saved copy on an EY server) and a typographical error in the Plaintiff's notice of motion.
- The Defendants sought correction of the judgment and orders by application under Order 28 Rule 11 RSC or, alternatively, under Order 28 Rule 12 RSC (and/or the court's inherent jurisdiction), and offered to make the correct originals available for inspection.
Plaintiff's Arguments
- The Plaintiff contended that the court had ordered the Defendants to bring an application under the Slip Rule on 15 November 2024 and that the judgment and orders compelled production of documents dated as stated in the original motion.
- The Plaintiff argued the orders were final and that the court was functus officio and should not amend them; he opposed the Defendants' applications and sought to preserve the judgment and orders as drawn.
Table of Precedents Cited
| Precedent | Rule or Principle Cited For | Application by the Court |
|---|---|---|
| Delany and McGrath on Civil Procedure (5th Ed.) | Explains distinction between interlocutory and final orders and flexibility to vary interlocutory orders (paras cited 25-48, 25-55). | Used to support the proposition that interlocutory orders (especially about discovery/inspection) may be varied where practical or legal difficulties arise. |
| Minister for Agriculture v. Alte Leipziger [2000] 4 IR 32 | Consideration of the distinction between interlocutory and final orders in the context of additional evidence on appeal. | Quoted to demonstrate the tests for interlocutory vs final orders and to reject the Plaintiff's functus officio argument. |
| Lismore Homes Ltd v. Bank of Ireland Finance Limited [2006] IEHC 212 | Statement that the court has jurisdiction to vary earlier interlocutory orders when necessary for the administration of justice. | Relied upon to confirm the court's jurisdiction to vary interlocutory inspection orders. |
| IBRC v. Quinn [2015] IECA 84 | Affirms court's discretion, including inherent jurisdiction, to alter or vary interlocutory orders and procedures for case management. | Applied to justify exercise of inherent jurisdiction (or Rule 12) to amend inspection process/orders where necessary. |
| Belville Holdings Ltd v. The Revenue Commissioners [1994] 1 ILRM 29 | Authorises a wider jurisdiction to amend an order which does not correctly state what the court actually decided or intended, even where final. | Adopted to show that the court may correct orders that do not reflect the court's true decision, though such corrections of final orders are exceptional. |
| Ainsworth v. Wilding [1896] 1 Ch 673 | Sets out principles where the court can interfere after judgment: clerical slips and where recorded judgment does not reflect what was actually decided. | Quoted (via Belville) to support the proposition that the court can correct its records to express its true intention. |
| In Re Swire 30 ChD 239 | Authority on the court's jurisdiction to correct orders that do not express the order actually made. | Used within the Belville/Ainsworth discussion to support the principle of correcting orders to reflect the court's intention. |
| In Re Greendale Developments Ltd (No 3) [2003] 2 IR 514 | Affirmation of Belville principle. | Quoted as a subsequent approval of the principle that orders may be amended to reflect the court's decision. |
| McMullen v. Clancy [2002] IESC 61 | Supports the court's inherent jurisdiction to amend orders where accidental error means the order does not state what the court decided; emphasises public interest in correct administration of justice. | Relied on to confirm inherent jurisdiction to correct errors and that the High Court retains jurisdiction to amend its own orders in such circumstances. |
Court's Reasoning and Analysis
Judge Cregan first considered whether the errors were clerical slips correctable under Order 28 Rule 11 RSC and concluded they were not: the judgment and orders were drawn up in light of the information before the court at the time, so the matter was not a simple clerical mistake. The Judge then analysed whether the court could amend its orders under Order 28 Rule 12 RSC or under its inherent jurisdiction. He examined whether the orders in question were interlocutory or final and concluded they were interlocutory for multiple reasons: outstanding practical issues (return of originals from the State), redaction disputes, adjournments and the explicit terms and timings in the orders (which contemplated further steps). The Judge relied on authorities (Delany & McGrath, Minister for Agriculture v. Alte Leipziger, Lismore Homes, IBRC v. Quinn) to show the court has discretion to vary interlocutory orders and manage litigation. He also considered authorities on the correction of final orders (Belville, Ainsworth, In Re Swire, In Re Greendale, McMullen v. Clancy) to confirm that the court possesses a wider inherent jurisdiction to correct records that do not reflect what the court actually decided, albeit such corrections of final orders are exceptional. Applying the facts, the Judge found on affidavit evidence (including Attorney O'Connor's affidavit and exhibits) that the true originals of both the deed of novation and the global deed of transfer were dated 14 June 2019. The deed of novation had been misdated in circulated copies due to an administrative error in the receiver's office (a mis-saved file on an EY server) and the global deed of transfer date error had arisen from a typographical error in the Plaintiff's own notice of motion. The Plaintiff had not inspected the originals and offered no coherent explanation for insisting on inspection of non-existent documents. The Judge found the errors to be administrative/human, that correcting the dates would not prejudice the Plaintiff, and that refusal to amend would render the orders nugatory and impede proper case management. On that basis the Judge concluded the appropriate course was to amend the judgment and related orders under Order 28 Rule 12 RSC and/or the court's inherent jurisdiction to reflect the correct dates.
Holding and Implications
AMENDMENTS GRANTED
Holding: The court ordered pursuant to Order 28 Rule 12 RSC (and/or the court's inherent jurisdiction) that Judge Cregan's judgment of 31 July 2024 and the order of 25 October 2024 (and related orders, including the order of 9 March 2023) be amended to record that the correct date of the deed of novation of receivers is 14 June 2019 and that the correct date of the global deed of transfer is 14 June 2019.
Implications: The direct effect is that the judgment and orders will be corrected to reflect the true dates and the Plaintiff may inspect the correct original documents; the decision does not purport to establish a new legal principle beyond the court's exercise of its Rule 12/inherent jurisdiction in these circumstances.
Alert