In re Suffield and Watts, Ex parte Brown: CA 1888

A High Court judge had made an order in bankruptcy proceedings which had the effect of varying a charging order which he had earlier made under the Solicitors Act 1860.
Held: A judge has jurisdiction to reverse his decision at any time until his order is perfected but not afterwards. Unlike the bankruptcy jurisdiction, the Solicitors Act gave no power of variation.
As Fry LJ said: ‘So long as the order has not been perfected the judge has a power of re-considering the matter, but, when once the order has been completed, the jurisdiction of the judge over it has come to an end.’


[1888] 20 QBD 693


Solicitors Act 1860


CitedIn re St Nazaire Company CA 1879
Sir Richard Malins V-C had permitted a petition to proceed which sought to vary an earlier order which he had made and which had been unsuccessfully appealed to the Court of Appeal.
Held: He had no power to do so. Any such power had . .

Cited by:

CitedRe L and B (Children) SC 20-Feb-2013
The court was asked as to the extent to which a court, having once declared its decision, could later change its mind. Though this case arose with in care proceedings, the court asked it as a general question. The judge in a fact finding hearing in . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Litigation Practice

Updated: 06 May 2022; Ref: scu.472059