Markos v Goodfellow and others: CA 30 Nov 2001

The parties had been involved in a bitter and protracted boundary dispute. The judge had found a minimal encroachment, and awarded nominal damages. He had made an error in the order. At an appeal counsel was given leave to apply to amend the oder under the slip rule (r40.12).
Held: The amendment was not the correction of an accidental slip or omission, and the judge on the first appeal had misdirected himself. The judge had misdirected himself on the consequences of a finding of fact. The order allowing the slip rule amendment had allowed the party to make unacceptable alterations. Leave was given to appeal against the refusal of leave.


Pill LJ


[2001] EWCA Civ 2031




Civil Procedure Rules 40.12 52 PD 4.8


England and Wales


CitedMarkos v Goodfellow and Barke and Barke CA 26-Jul-2001
There was a boundary dispute. The judge in the County Court had made an error. Counsel had offered to apply to amend the order under the slip rule, and therefore the judge had refused leave to appeal.
Held: This was an application for leave to . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Civil Procedure Rules

Updated: 27 June 2022; Ref: scu.218543