The High Court has ordered corrections to a 2013 well charging order to record Linda Doran’s earlier joinder as a defendant and to correct the date a judgment mortgage was registered. It refused to amend the order to provide for interest at 8 per cent until payment, saying that request was absent from the notice of motion and, in any event, the court’s original intention was unclear.
The judgment, delivered by Mr Justice Garrett Simons on 30 June 2022, concerned a contested application under the slip rule, which allows a court to correct clerical mistakes or accidental errors in its orders. The original proceedings sought to charge William Doran’s interest in land in County Kilkenny with a judgment mortgage. William and Linda Doran were registered as joint owners.
The plaintiffs registered the mortgage against William Doran’s interest on 28 January 2010. On 8 July 2013, the High Court made a well charging order. Its wording named William Doran as the only defendant, referred to Linda Doran as though she were not a party, and did not clearly distinguish which defendant’s interest was charged. The order also contained unclear wording about interest.
The plaintiffs applied in July 2019 to correct the order after the Examiner’s Office raised queries about it. The judge said the plaintiffs should have exhibited the office’s January 2019 letter from the outset. A recording of the 2013 hearing could not be obtained, so any correction had to be manifest from the available material.
Justice Simons found it clear that the 2013 order was intended to charge William Doran’s interest alone. The corrections would make the order reflect the earlier order joining Linda Doran, and would not extend the charge to her interest. He found no prejudice to either defendant from those changes. The order will add Linda Doran to its title, distinguish the first and second defendants in its text, and state that the mortgage was registered on 28 January 2010.
The judge held that the interest request could not be granted because it had not been precisely set out in the notice of motion. He added that even if it had been included, he would have refused it: the wording did not establish what the 2013 court intended, and the plaintiffs had previously waived their claim to interest in the underlying default judgment application. The judge also cited the nine-year delay and the substantial additional burden that the proposed interest could impose.
On costs, the judge’s provisional view was that each party should bear its own costs of the application, given the plaintiffs’ partial success, their failure to check the perfected order and their delay in producing the Examiner’s letter. Either side could seek a different costs order by contacting the registrar within 14 days. If neither did so, the order would be drawn up as stated.