Legal News

Court rejects use of CPR 3.1(7) to vary final orders (Clutterbuck and another v A)

Court rejects use of CPR 3.1(7) to vary final orders (Clutterbuck and another v A)
Published on: 28 June 2017
Published by: LexisPSL
  • Court rejects use of CPR 3.1(7) to vary final orders (Clutterbuck and another v A)
  • Original news:
  • What are the practical implications of this decision?
  • What was the case about?
  • What were the salient facts of this case?
  • Is CPR 3.1(7) available in respect of final court orders?
  • What is the appropriate route to contest a costs order?

Article summary

Dispute resolution analysis: William Skjøtt, barrister at Lamb Chambers considers the case Clutterbuck and another v A. In the, hopefully final, act of litigation in the infamous ‘Saudi Princess’ case, the court considered the application of CPR 3.1(7) where the losing claimants wished to set aside a costs order. The judge found that an application under CPR 3.1(7) where permission to appeal had already been refused was a ‘manifestly unsuitable and even improper route, akin in effect to an abuse of process’. or take a trial to read the full analysis.

Popular documents