Firstcaribbean International (Bahamas) Ltd v Wilson-Bowe (Nee Carroll)

• Jurisdiction: Bahamas
• Judge: Winder, J.
• Judgment Date: 13 February 2015
• Date: 13 February 2015
• Court: Supreme Court (Bahamas)
• Docket Number: 2012/CLE/gen/00840

Supreme Court

Winder, J.

2012/CLE/gen/00840

Firstcaribbean International (Bahamas) Limited

and

Wilson-Bowe (Nee Carroll)

Appearances:

Nerissa Green for the plaintiff

Renae McKay with Alexandria Collie for the defendant

Civil practice and procedure - Application to amend Order — Slip rule — Whether omission could be corrected by the rule — Order expressed intention of the court — Correction could not be made under this rule or court's inherent jurisdiction — Omission one of substance — Relief sought refused — Order 20 Rule 10 of the Rules of the Supreme Court.

Winder, J.

This is an application by the plaintiff to amend an Order under the slip rule.

1 On 12 November 2013 I made the following Order in favor of the plaintiff:

1

That the defendant do give up and deliver up to the plaintiff vacant possession of ALL THAT Townhouse number five (5), Sand Dollar Drive, Sandyport Subdivision in the Western District of the Island of New Providence, such order to be suspended for three (3) months. 2. That the defendant pays the sum of One hundred and ninety-one thousand five hundred and Twenty dollars and Ninety four cents ($191,520.94) being the principal and interest accrued and due to the plaintiff under loan number 100279167 and the sum of Fifty-one thousand and Four dollars and Ninety-nine cents ($51,004.99) being the principal and interest accrued and due to the plaintiff under loan number 201360089 as at the 12th day of November AD 2013 and continuing thereafter; 3. That the costs of the action be and are hereby granted to the plaintiff to be taxed if not agreed.

2 This was the exact relief claimed in the Originating Summons filed on 22 June 2012.

3 On 25 April 2014 the defendant paid the sum of $249,881.47 to the plaintiff purportedly in satisfaction of the judgment of 12 November 2013.

4 On 25 June 2014 the plaintiff filed the Affidavit of Robert Cox in support of a Summons filed on 11 June 2014 made pursuant to Order 20 rule 7 seeking to amend the Order made on 12 November 2013 averring that the said Order wrongly noted the outstanding balances of $191,520.94 and $51,004.99 rather than the correct amounts of $220,138.88 and $57,780.33.

5 The defendant argues that the omission, which the plaintiff seeks to correct, was one of substance and not a mere omission.

6 I agree.

7 Order 20 r. 10 of the RSC, which is often referred-to as the ‘slip rule’ provides: “Clerical mistakes in...