A judge who had submitted a draft judgment to the parties for comment before publishing a final version, was entitled to go ahead and publish his judgment notwithstanding that the parties had reached a settlement after seeing the draft. The judge has an independent discretion to do so if he thought it in the public interest. He has a wider power than one of simple correction of errors, even when the stage has already been reached of judgment having been given.
Brooke LJ said: ‘This is the ‘handed down judgment’ of which copies are to be made available in advance of the hearing 24 hours earlier than was allowed for in the previous practice. The express purpose of these arrangements was to enable the parties’ legal advisers to consider ‘the judgment’ and decide what consequential orders they should seek. The parties themselves were not ordinarily to be allowed to have the contents of the judgment communicated to them until an hour before the listed time for ‘pronouncement of the judgment’ because ‘the judgment’ is confidential until it is ‘given’. The document which is sent to the parties’ legal advisers in confidence is to be marked ‘unapproved judgment’, and the reason why the procedure is being elongated is to enable minor corrections to be pointed out to the judge in time for them to be put right before the judgment is ‘handed down formally in court . . It is clear that when a copy of the judgment is sent to the parties’ legal advisers in accordance with this new practice, it is not at that time being given or made within the meaning of CPR 40.7 (‘a judgment or order takes effect from the day when it is given or made’): compare Holtby v Hodgson (1889 QBD 103). It is also clear that the judge is at liberty to alter the terms of his or her judgment (whether to make minor corrections or for any other reason) before handing it down formally in court. This, however, is nothing new, because it has always been within the powers of a judge to reconsider his or her decision at any time before it is entered and perfected (Re St Nazaire Co (1879) 12 Ch D 88, 91; Re Suffield and Watts ex p Brown (1888) 20 QBD 693 697). It has also always been within a judge’s powers to alter at any time his or her judgment if it has been delivered orally, although not so as to contradict the order made on the judgment once it has been perfected (see Secretary of State for Trade and Industry v Rogers [1996] 1 WLR 1569, 1578 and Medcalf v Mardell (CAT 2 March 2000, para 62).’
Judges:
Brooke LJ
Citations:
Times 02-Jun-2000, Gazette 15-Jun-2000, [2000] EWCA Civ 172, [2000] 1 WLR 2000, [2000] CPLR 475, [2001] 3 All ER 1014, [2001] CP Rep 19
Links:
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Cited by:
Cited – F and C Alternative Investments (Holdings) Ltd v Barthelemy and Another ChD 14-Jul-2011
The parties applied to the court for a conclusion to their action without the draft judgment being handed down and published, they having reached agreement.
Held: It was within the judge’s discretion and in this in the public interest for the . .
See Also – Prudential Assurance Company Ltd v McBains Cooper TCC 27-Jun-2000
The claimant sought damages from the defendant firm of surveyors, alleging negligence in their survey of commercial property. . .
Cited – TZ v General Medical Council Admn 17-Apr-2015
Appeal against decision of a Fitness to Practise Panel holding that the Appellant’s fitness to practise as a medical practitioner was impaired by reason of his misconduct. It directed that his name be erased from the Medical Register under section . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Litigation Practice
Updated: 23 May 2022; Ref: scu.135751