Judgments and orders

Drafting, drawing up and formal requirements

Judgments and orders must show the date on which they were made and must be sealed by the court. Other requirements are dependent upon the type of judgment or order and the court in which it is made.

Courts may draw up orders or direct that the parties do so. There are a number of court forms of orders and judgments. All consent orders are prepared by the parties.

Judgments can be given at the hearing or may be reserved to a later date. A reserved judgment is circulated to the parties on a confidential basis two days before it is handed down. This provides time, for example, to try and agree any consequential orders with the other parties. For further information about the purpose of reserving a judgment and concerns that may arise as a result, see Practice Notes: Reserved judgments—purpose and restrictions and Draft judgments—concerns over confidentiality and redactions.

For more details about drafting orders, see Practice Note: Judgments and orders—drafting and formalities.

For a Precedent final order, see: Order.

For specific guidance on orders made

To view the latest version of this document and thousands of others like it, sign-in with LexisNexis or register for a free trial.

TAKE A FREE TRIAL

Latest Dispute Resolution News

HMCTS updates anonymity order form to clarify anonymous hearing listing guidance

HM Courts & Tribunals Service (HMCTS) has updated Form PF10—the template for anonymity and prohibition of publication orders for children and protected parties. The revision clarifies that claimants should consider requesting that the court hold approval hearings anonymously.

Security for costs—evidence required and proportionality considerations (Qatar Investment and Project Developments Holding Co v Pheonix Ancient Art SA)

Dispute resolution analysis: In this security for costs application, the Court of Appeal granted security of £70,000 (reduced from the requested £169,000) against appellants residing outside the jurisdiction. The court affirmed the two-stage approach under CPR 25.29—first establishing threshold conditions under CPR 25.27(b), and second determining whether ordering security is just in the circumstances. The court found that Phoenix's precarious financial position, evidence of asset disposal, and incomplete disclosure justified the order. Notably, the court clarified that pre-Brexit provisions no longer apply to cases issued before December 2020, following the 2025 CPR amendments. The decision provides valuable guidance on evidence requirements for security applications and emphasises the court's focus on proportionality when determining security amounts. Practical implications written by Shilpa Shah of Ropewalk Chambers.

LSB reveals scope of Mazur regulatory advice review

Law360, London: England's legal oversight regulator has revealed that its review of watchdogs after the High Court ruling on Mazur will investigate whether their guidance about who could conduct litigation had an 'adverse impact on the regulatory objectives'.