The slip rule could not be used by the court to add second thoughts to a judgment, but could be used by the court to amend the judgment to give effect to the court’s original intention. In this case the effect of an appeal was to restart the running of interest from the date of the appeal judgment even though this had not been an issue, nor had it been intended, and the judgment could be amended to allow the courts intention to have effect. Whilst the authorities ‘establish that the slip rule cannot enable a court to have second or additional thoughts. Once the order is drawn up any mistakes must be corrected by an appellate court. However it is possible under the slip rule to amend an order to give effect to the intention of the court.’
Judges:
Aldous LJ
Citations:
Times 26-Apr-2001, [2001] EWCA Civ 414
Links:
Statutes:
Civil Procedure Rules Part 40.12 (1)
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Cited by:
See also – Bristol-Myers Squibb Company v Baker Norton Pharmaceuticals Inc, Napro Biotherapeutics Inc CA 23-May-2000
. .
Cited – Herbert George Snell and others v Robert Young and Co Limited and others CA 21-Nov-2002
The claimants had sought damages for poisoning from organophosphates used in sheep dipping. Evidence linking the injuries to the use of the chemicals had not been found, and the actions struck out as an abuse of process. The group litigation had . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Litigation Practice, Civil Procedure Rules
Updated: 18 May 2022; Ref: scu.78601
