We use cookies to improve our site and your experience. By continuing to browse on this website you accept the use of cookies. Read more...

CPR Rule 3.1(7) and varying an order granting Judgment by consent

CPR 3.1(7) gives the Court a power to vary or revoke an order. The power is used sparingly when the order is ‘final’ ie when it determines between the parties the issues which are the subject matter of the litigation.

In a case where Judgment is entered by consent can the court vary that final order under CPR 3.1(7) where new evidence has come to light? This was the issue before Leggatt J in the case of Simmons v City Hospitals Sunderland NHS [2016] EWHC 2593 (QB).

In this medical negligence claim C claimed D’s hospital staff failed to promptly diagnose her condition of necrotising fasciitis following an emergency caesarean section and that this delay led to the development of more serious injuries. In its Defence D admitted negligence in failing to make a timely diagnosis and that this led to some injury but denied causing C’s more serious medical ailments.

Judgment was entered by consent based on D’s admissions in the Defence. A few months later D held a conference with some medical experts. They contended the admissions in the Defence should not have been made because C did not in fact suffer from necrotising fasciitis. D therefore applied to vary the final order under CPR 3.1(7) relying on the newly obtained medical evidence.

In considering the application Leggatt J held that CPR 3.1(7) should not be used to circumnavigate the principle that final orders are intended to be final. Instead a party wishing to challenge a final order should ordinarily do so by appeal.

Nonetheless the application was granted. It was relevant that the litigation was still at an early stage and that the admissions D sought to withdraw were inextricably intertwined with the remaining issues in dispute. In coming to his decision the Judge considered both Ladd v Marshall [1954] 1 WLR 1489 concerning the admissibility of fresh evidence on appeal and Atkins v Cooperative Group Limited [2016] EWHC 80 (QB) involving an appeal brought from an earlier Judgment by consent. It therefore seemingly made little practical difference that the application was made under CPR 3.1(7) instead of by way of appeal. 

Vaughan Jacob / 17th Feb 2017


Disclaimer

The information and any commentary on the law contained on this web site is provided free of charge for information purposes only. Every reasonable effort is made to make the information and commentary accurate and up to date, but no responsibility for its accuracy and correctness, or for any consequences of relying on it, is assumed by any member of Chambers. The information and commentary does not, and is not intended to, amount to legal advice to any person on a specific case or matter. You are strongly advised to obtain specific, personal advice from a lawyer about your case or matter and not to rely on the information or comments on this site. No responsibility is accepted for the content or accuracy of linked sites.


Download as PDF


Back to News

 

Get In Touch

If you like what you've read but want to know more about how we can help you, simply call us:


020 7797 8300


Alternatively you can  send us an email and a member of our team will contact you as soon as possible.

Share: