Practice

The Chancery Division dismissed the defendant’s application for an order that the audio recording of a judgment of a district judge be released because the transcript of the judgment, which had been provided, had not accurately set out the judgment which the judge had actually delivered in court. The court held that the mere fact that the transcript of the judgment, as approved by a judge, and sent to the parties, was in any way different from the reasons actually pronounced by the judge at the time of giving judgment, was not wrong in law. There was no duty on a judge to approve a transcript limited to the exact terms of the words spoken on the day. It was clear law that a judge, who had given reasons for a decision, might alter those reasons after having made them known to the parties.