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 PI & Clinical Negligence News

ACSO comments on PAC report on costs of clinical negligence

The Association of Consumer Support Organisations (ACSO) has published commentary by its Executive Director, Matthew Maxwell Scott, on the Public Accounts Committee (PAC) report on the costs of clinical negligence. He noted that every incident of negligence represents a person harmed, a family traumatised and a life changed, and that reducing harm both improves patient outcomes and ensures more money is directed to frontline care. The commentary highlighted serious concerns in maternity services, where 14 trusts are under investigation for poor safety and systemic failures. It said that claimants and families primarily want answers and action to prevent future harm. Scott called on the Department of Health and Social Care to publish David Lock KC’s review alongside its own reviews. He also said that legal costs form only a small part of the overall issue, and that measures such as alternative dispute resolution, joint settlement meetings and fixed recoverable costs in lower-value cases should be progressed, provided they do not undermine patient safety or access to justice.

AvMA welcomes PAC report on clinical negligence and calls for DHSC action

Action against Medical Accidents (AvMA) has published its response to the Public Accounts Committee (PAC)'s report on clinical negligence and patient safety. AvMA welcomed the PAC's focus on the rising costs of clinical negligence and its recognition of the distress caused to individuals and families. It endorsed the PAC's conclusion that the Department of Health and Social Care (DHSC) and NHS England have not taken sufficient action to address patient safety and prevent avoidable harm in healthcare. AvMA also supported the PAC's recommendations to strengthen focus on patient safety, improve data collection on avoidable harm and develop an operational plan to reduce claims, including the use of alternative dispute resolution. It called on the DHSC and NHS England to accept these recommendations and to prioritise learning from the experiences of harmed patients and their families.

PAC outlines recommendations to tackle rising clinical negligence costs

The Committee of Public Accounts (PAC) has published a report examining the rising costs of clinical negligence, setting out a series of detailed recommendations aimed at addressing long-standing issues. It criticises the Department of Health and Social Care (DHSC) and NHS England for failing to take meaningful action despite repeated warnings. The Committee finds that clinical negligence liabilities have reached £60bn in 2024–25, with annual settlement costs of £3.6bn. It recommends that the DHSC produce a clear operational plan to reduce claim volumes and costs and publish David Lock KC’s review within six months of its completion. The PAC also calls for a national framework to improve patient safety, reforms to the NHS complaints system to increase local resolution, improved tracking of the costs of avoidable harm and updates on NHS progress in implementing the Dash Review and assessing the impact of abolishing the Health Services Safety Investigations Body (HSSIB).

COVID-19 elements struck out of nursing home fatal accident claims (Rehman and others v Secretary of State for Health and Social Care and others)

PI & Clinical Negligence analysis: On a summary judgment application by the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care and other defendants, certain allegations in respect of the deceased contracting COVID-19 were struck out of fatal accident claims. The court explained why neither the principle of material contribution to injury (Bonnington Castings v Wardlaw) nor the principle of material contribution to risk (Fairchild v Glenhaven Funeral Services Ltd) applied in the case of the COVID-19 claims. Left with having to prove causation on normal ‘but for’ principles, these elements of the claims had insurmountable evidential difficulties and were struck out. Written by Jasmine Murphy, barrister at Gatehouse Chambers.

View PI & Clinical Negligence by content type :

News