Seventh Earl of Malmesbury v Strutt & Parker [2007] EWHC 2199 (QB), [2007] All ER (D) 103 (Oct)
Where a judgment has been delivered, either orally or by handing down, the judge may, in appropriate circumstances, alter it at any time prior to an order giving effect to the judgment.
Once there is such an order, the judge is functus officio, and the only way forward for a dissatisfied party is to appeal. It has sometimes been said that the circumstances must be “exceptional” but more recently it has been suggested that it is better to state that “strong reasons” must exist before the jurisdiction will be exercised.
The need for a stringent limitation is that the parties to litigation should ordinarily be able to treat a delivered judgment as final, and be free from the risk that a dissatisfied party may re-open his arguments before the judge. A judge should only exercise his jurisdiction to reconsider a judgment where it is clear to him without prolonged enquiry that he has reached the wrong conclusion.
