England and Wales Court of Appeal (Civil Division) Decisions

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF JUDICATURE
B2/00/0272
COURT OF APPEAL (CIVIL DIVISION)
ON APPEAL FROM THE COUNTY COURT AT WORCESTER
(Mr Recorder Rundell)

		Royal Courts of Justice Strand London WC2 Tuesday, 22nd May 2001

1. LORD JUSTICE POTTER: In this case the matter has been restored before us on the basis of what appeared to the advisers for the appellants to be an error or errors of arithmetic, or misunderstanding of the true position, in the judgment as delivered, which were only noticed after the judgment was handed down in court and indeed the order drawn up in respect of the outcome of the appeal. However, as a result of the matters canvassed before us by Mr. Harrison-Hall and the intervention by Mr. Hill-Smith, we have, on re-examination of the skeleton arguments in the appeal before us and in particular the skeleton argument of Mr. Harrison-Hall, which contains a number of concessions in relation to the calculation of damages, satisfied ourselves that there is no error in the judgment.
2. The principal point which appears to have given rise to some misunderstanding was the phraseology used in the second sentence of paragraph 76 of our judgment, which in our view makes good enough sense if it is read with the first line of the paragraph and related to other passages in the judgment, but which, for the avoidance of any error whatsoever, should best be amended in any report which may be made of the decision (and none, it appears, has been made so far) to read as follows:

"It is accepted that for practical purposes payments of interest on the mortgage repayments on the one hand and interest on the rent on the other should be treated as self-cancelling and therefore that the sum of £4,116.07 should be deducted from the damages awarded."

Order: Application refused with costs, those costs to be set off against the costs as eventually determined to be payable by the Council in respect of the appeal. (Order not part of the judgment of the court)