Millensted v Grosvenor House (Park Lane) Ltd: CA 1937

For the negligence of the hotel in upsetting a jug of hot water over her, the judge awarded damages of pounds 50 to the plaintiff, but on the following day, without further argument on that point, he informed the parties that his award had been excessive and would be only pounds 35. She appealed.
Held: Until the order of a judge has been sealed he retains the ability to recall the order he has made even if he has given reasons for that order by a judgment handed down or orally delivered.
Farwell J gave guidance as to what a judge should do on mistakenly being informed of a payment into court: ‘The purpose of the order is obvious, it was made to prevent the premature disclosure of a fact which was not relevant to the issues to be tried, but the disclosure of which might prejudice one or more of the parties to the proceedings. It is to be noticed, that the order makes no express provision for the event of an infringement of the rule. It is, of course, the duty of both judge and counsel to observe the rule, but what is to be done if the rule by inadvertence or otherwise is broken? In my judgment, this is in every case a matter for the trial judge to determine, having due regard to the object for which the rule was made. If he thinks it proper or necessary for the due administration of justice, he may refuse to hear the action any further and direct it to be tried before another tribunal. On the other hand, if he is satisfied that no injustice will be done, he may allow the matter to proceed and if he adopts the latter course, that in itself affords no ground for an appeal from the order which is ultimately made.’
Farwell J
[1937] 1 KB 717, [1937] 1 All ER 736
England and Wales
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 . .
AppliedPittalis v Sherefettin CA 1986
On the day after the judge had given judgment in a county court, he decided that he had been wrong. The judge provided the party with grounds upon which he would, if not persuaded otherwise, alter his previous judgment and order. A further hearing . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 14 August 2021; Ref: scu.464844