- High Court provides further clarification of ambit of ‘slip rule’ under CPR 40.12 (Vucicevic v Aleksic)
- What are the practical implications of this case?
- What was the background?
- What did the court decide?
- Case details
Dispute Resolution analysis: The so-called ‘slip rule’ under CPR 40.12, which allows the court to ‘correct an accidental slip or omission in a judgment or order’, is a useful tool for litigants who, in the light of later reflection, realise that the terms of a court order are inaccurate or incomplete. The rule reflects a pragmatic acceptance that mistakes or oversights do happen, and that it should not be unduly onerous for litigants to remedy those where possible. However, this decision underlines that there are limits to the issues the slip rule is capable of fixing, reaffirming that the touchstone for the rule should be what the intention of the court was at the time the order was made; it is not means to litigate new points, or include new evidence, which was not originally before the court. Written by Leo Kitchen, senior associate, at Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan UK LLP.
Sign in or take a trial to read the full analysis.
To continue reading this news article, as well as thousands of others like it, sign in to LexisPSL or register for a free trial