Supreme Court allows appeal by correcting a £50 calculation error in the counterclaim judgment amount.
Zypern (CY)
Legislator-Zusammenfassung
KI-generiertThe Supreme Court allowed the appellant's appeal regarding a mathematical error in the District Court's judgment. The trial judge awarded £4,500, but the appellate court recalculated the debt based on evidence showing a total of £9,900, which should have resulted in a £4,450 payment after deducting the appellant's share of a separate debt. The court varied the judgment to reflect the accurate sum of £4,450 while dismissing the appellant's broader claim that the original figure was entirely wrong.
Legislator-Regeste
KI-generiertCivil Procedure Act; Civil Procedure Rules: Where a judgment contains a clear mathematical error affecting the sum awarded, the appellate court may vary the judgment to reflect the correct calculation based on the evidence adduced at trial.
Schlagwörter
KI-generiertVerwandte Entscheide
KI-generiertVolltext
[*1] 1986 May 29
(A. LOIZOU, PIKIS, KOURRIS, JJ.)
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
Takis A. Skaros,
Appellant-Plaintiff,
v.
Christakis Nourou and Others,
Respondents-Defendants.
(Civil Appeal No. 6849).
Appeal on ground of an erroneous mathematical calculation of the amount of judgment given on the counterclaim - In the circumstances appellant’s arguments were not accepted, but the judgment of £4,500 was varied by reducing it by £50 - No order as to costs.
A. Pittadjis with Chr. Tsishos, for the Appellant.
L. Papaphilippou, for the Respondents.
JUDGMENT
A. LOIZOU. J.:- The judgment of the Court will be delivered by Mr. Justice Kourris.
KOURRIS, J.:- This is an appeal against the judgment given by a Judge of the District Court of Larnaca in Case No. 382/83. The learned Judge dismissed the plaintiff’s claim and gave judgment for the defendant No.1 on his counterclaim for £4, 500,
During the hearing of the appeal, counsel for the appellant abandoned all grounds of appeal except the last one, to the effect that the trial Court erred in giving [*2] judgment against the appellant for the. sum or £4,500.-.
He alleged that the trial Judge on a mathematical calculation ought to have given judgment for £4,000 only, because, .the appellant paid the sum of £500 to D.W.4, Panaoutas.
We have considered the argument of learned counsel for the defendant, but we are unable to accept it. The learned trial Judge accepted the evidence of D.W.4, Panaoutas, to the effect that he received from defendant 1 the sum of £8,900 and the sum of £1,000 which he received in January, 1983 was not included in the above sum. Adding the sum of £1,000 to the sum of £8,900, makes a total of £9,900. Bearing in mind that the plaintiff had to pay half of this sum, then, according to mathematical calculations, he ought to have paid to the defendant the sum of £4,950. We deduct from this amount the sum of £500, his share of the debt to D.W.4, Panaoutas in January, 1983, leaving thus a balance of £4,450.
The reason we did not uphold the argument of counsel for the appellant, is that the appellant was not liable to pay to Panasatas the exact sum of £4,500 but approximately that amount, as it is evidenced by Exhibit 5, the agreement between respondent 1 and the appellant. Evidence was received without any objection, before the trial Court, that they used the word “approximately’’ to include, any interest that -might accrue by the time of payment and the defendant 1 paid to D.W.4, as we said before, £8,900, plus £1,000 paid in January., 1983, making a total of £9,900, including interest. [*3]
In view of the above reasons we vary the judgment on the counterclaim against the appellant by reducing it from £4,500 to £4,450.-
Bearing in mind the circumstances of this appeal and the amount for which the appellant succeeded, in exercising our discretion, we make no order as to costs.
Appeal allowed.
N. order as to costs.