Spotlight
Family Law Awards 2020
Shortlist announced - time to place your vote!
Court of Protection Practice 2020
'Court of Protection Practice goes from strength to strength, having...
Jackson's Matrimonial Finance Tenth Edition
Jackson's Matrimonial Finance is an authoritative specialist text...
Spotlight
Latest articles
Practical aspects to assessing competence in children
Rebecca Stevens, Partner, Royds Withy KingThis is an article regarding the practical aspects to assessing competence in children. The article explores a range of practicalities, such as meeting a...
Scrumping the crop of recent pension decisions
Rhys Taylor, 36 Family and 30 Park PlaceJonathan Galbraith, Mathieson Consulting2020 has thus far proved to be a memorable year for all the wrong reasons, but nonetheless it remains an interesting one...
Conduct in financial remedies – when is it now a relevant consideration?
Rachel Gillman, 1 GC/Family LawThis article provides an overview of all aspects of financial misconduct following the recent decision of Mostyn J in OG v AG [2020] EWFC 52, wherein all aspects of...
The treatment of RSUs/Stock Options in light of XW v XH
Peter Mitchell QC, 29 Bedford RowStock Options and Restricted Stock Units (RSUs) are frequently encountered by the Family Court when dividing property on divorce or dissolution of a Civil Partnership....
Hundreds of thousands of companies worldwide fall victims to hackers every year. Is your firm one of them?
SPONSORED CONTENT Image source: Information is beautifulYou and other lawyers and legal assistants in your firm likely have accounts on the hacked websites listed in the image above. If a hacker...
View all articles
Authors

PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE: Egan v Motor Services (Bath), [2007] The Times December 24

Sep 29, 2018, 17:16 PM
Slug : egan-v-motor-services-bath-2007-the-times-december-24
Meta Title :
Meta Keywords :
Canonical URL :
Trending Article : No
Prioritise In Trending Articles : No
Date : Oct 18, 2007, 10:27 AM
Article ID : 87815

(Court of Appeal; Smith, Ward and Arden LJJ; 18 October 2007)

Counsel were not to use sight of draft judgments as an opportunity to request that the judge reconsider a point of substance. Drafts were sent to enable parties to identify points of spelling, minor factual errors and typography, to seek agreement on costs, and to consider an appeal. Only in the most exceptional circumstances was it appropriate to ask the judge to reconsider a point of substance, e.g. a failure to give adequate reasons; a decision on a point not argued properly before the judge; or the judge's reliance on an authority not considered during the hearing. In such a case the appropriate course would be to ask the judge either to reconvene for further argument, or to receive written submissions from both sides.

Categories :
  • Archive
  • Judgments
Tags :
Authors
Provider :
Product Bucket :
Recommend These Products
Related Articles
Load more comments
Comment by from