The lawyers representing retired Scotiabank boss William 'Bill' Clarke in his dispute with the bank are claiming that a critical change was made to the Supreme Court judgment after it was handed down.

Clarke wants the Court of Appeal to overturn a Supreme Court ruling that there was no agreement for his retirement package to go to arbitration if it could not be settled.

The Supreme Court had also turned down his application to remain in the company house and keep the two company cars until the package has been agreed on.

In the Court of Appeal yesterday, Clarke's lawyers, Dr Lloyd Barnett and Keith Bishop, raised objection to an aspect of the Supreme Court's written judgment.

Different dates

They are contending that in the handwritten judgment, Supreme Court Judge Horace Marsh mentioned November 25, 2008, as the date when certain things took place but, in the typewritten judgment, the date was changed to October 25, 2008.

Barnett submitted that once a judgment was handed down and a final order perfected, a judge could not amend it.

He said if a judge were allowed to amend a judgment after the final orders were issued, it would make a mockery of a person's right to challenge the ruling and reasons given.

Barnett is asking the court to determine whether the judge could make corrections in the judgment after the order had been perfected.

But Queen's Counsel John Vassell, who is representing the bank, is opposing Dr Barnett's application for the handwritten judgment to be used in court instead of the typewritten judgment.

Vassell is contending that the inaccuracies in the judgment were typographical errors.

He will make his submissions when the hearing continues today.

The bank had informed Clarke that he was to hand over the motor cars and vacate the house by May 31.

Clarke went on retirement on November 1 last year after more than 40 years at the bank, with 13 years as its head.