Chamberlain J discussed the reactions to his draft judgment: ‘This judgment, exactly as it appears above, was produced in draft in the usual way and sent, under embargo, to the parties for their editorial corrections. Professional lawyers ought to know that the circulation of draft judgments for this purpose should not be taken as a pretext to reargue the case. It has been said on many occasions that an invitation to go beyond typographical and other minor corrections and reconsider the substance should be made only in the most exceptional circumstances: see e.g. Egan v Motor Services (Bath) Ltd (Note)  1 WLR 1589, - (Smith LJ); R (Mohamed) v Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (No. 2)  QB 218,  (Lord Judge CJ); In Re I (Children)  1 WLR 5822, -. As King LJ put in in the latter case, at , ‘a judge’s draft judgment is not an ‘invitation to treat’, nor is it an opportunity to critique the judgment or to enter into negotiations with the judge as to the outcome or to reargue the case in an attempt to water down unpalatable findings’.’
 EWHC 1017 (QB)
England and Wales
See Also – Michael Wilson and Partners Ltd v Sinclair and Another QBD 24-Mar-2020
Cited – Macom Gmbh v Bozeat and Others ChD 21-Jun-2021
Order regulating company’s affairs
COMPANY – Unfair prejudice – Petitioner 60% shareholder – Respondents 40% shareholders – Alleged breaches of director’s duties and failures to observe Shareholders’ Agreement – Undermining company’s corporate governance – Appropriate remedy – . .
These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 10 July 2021; Ref: scu.650581