header-logo header-logo

Practice and procedure

02 December 2010
Issue: 7444 / Categories: Case law , Law digest
printer mail-detail

SAS institute Inc v World Programming Ltd [2010] EWHC 3012 (Ch), [2010] All ER (D) 243 (Nov)

It was established law that CPR 3.1(7) conferred on the courts a general power to vary or revoke their own orders. The circumstances in which that power might be used was where an applicant had to show some material change of circumstance or that the judge who had made the earlier order had been misled in some way, whether innocently or otherwise as to the correct factual position before him. If all that was sought was a reconsideration of the order on the basis of the same material, then that could only be done in the context of an appeal. There was scant authority upon CPR 3.1(7) but such as existed was unanimous in holding that it could not constitute power in a judge to hear an appeal from himself in respect of a final order.

AB and others v Ministry of Defence [2010] EWCA Civ 1317, [2010] All ER (D) 252 (Nov)

The power under CPR

If you are not a subscriber, subscribe now to read this content
If you are already a subscriber sign in
...or Register for two weeks' free access to subscriber content

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Hill Dickinson—Paul Matthews, Liz Graham & Sarah Pace

Hill Dickinson—Paul Matthews, Liz Graham & Sarah Pace

Leeds office strengthened with triple partner hire

Clarke Willmott—Oksana Howard

Clarke Willmott—Oksana Howard

Corporate lawyer joins as partner in London office

Pillsbury—Steven James

Pillsbury—Steven James

Firm boosts London IP capability with high-profile technology sector hire

NEWS
Mazur v Charles Russell Speechlys LLP [2025] EWHC 2341 (KB) continues to stir controversy across civil litigation, according to NLJ columnist Professor Dominic Regan of City Law School—AKA ‘The insider’
SRA v Goodwin is a rare disciplinary decision where a solicitor found to have acted dishonestly avoided being struck off, says Clare Hughes-Williams of DAC Beachcroft in this week's NLJ. The Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal (SDT) imposed a 12-month suspension instead, citing medical evidence and the absence of harm to clients
In their latest Family Law Brief for NLJ, Ellie Hampson-Jones and Carla Ditz of Stewarts review three key family law rulings, including the latest instalment in the long-running saga of Potanin v Potanina
The Asian International Arbitration Centre’s sweeping reforms through its AIAC Suite of Rules 2026, unveiled at Asia ADR Week, are under examination in this week's NLJ by John (Ching Jack) Choi of Gresham Legal
In this week's issue of NLJ, Yasseen Gailani and Alexander Martin of Quinn Emanuel report on the High Court’s decision in Skatteforvaltningen (SKAT) v Solo Capital Partners LLP & Ors [2025], where Denmark’s tax authority failed to recover £1.4bn in disputed dividend tax refunds
back-to-top-scroll