Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-gb8f7 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-29T15:57:52.647Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Perfecting of Orders in Chancery

An historical Background to Re Harrison1

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  16 January 2009

Michael Birks
Michael Birks
Affiliation:
Clerk to the Chancery Registrars, of Trinity College. B.A.
Get access

Extract

From the standpoint of jurisprudence of any court should be perfected immediately after the judge has pronounced his decision. Unfortunately this ideal is not easily attainable in practice, and least of all in a court of equity. In the Chancery Division of the High Court the elaborate procedure built up by the old Court of Chancery for perfecting orders still remains virtually unchanged; and so far as the reported cases go the court had never been required until the recent case of Re Harrison,1 to decide at what moment in time its decision becomes irrevocable. put very shortly the point at issue in this case was whether a judge of the Chancery Division has power of his own motion to alter or reverse (before the judgment has been entered) an oral and decisive judgment given in open court.

Type
Research Article
Information
The Cambridge Law Journal , Volume 13 , Issue 1 , April 1955 , pp. 101 - 112
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge Law Journal and Contributors 1955

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

2 [1954] 2 W.L.R. 723.

3 Sanders Orders. p. 7c.

4 Cal. Pat. Rolls, Edw. VI, ii, p. 3.

5 These documents which came to be described. rather inappropriately as “docquets” are preserved in the Public Record Office, but have never been arranged. The earliest I have seen is dated 1630; whether in fact they are preserved since 1534 is doubtful.

6 Cal. State Papers, 1637. p. 561.

7 1 & 2 Edw. VI, Reg. Lib. B, Fo. 60.

8 8 Decree Rolls, P.R.O.C. 78. No. 34 on roll.

9 1 Edw. VI, Reg. Lib. A. Fo. 144.

10 1714 edition, p. 123.

11 Sanders Orders. P. 265; and also Parlt. Papers. 1826, XV, App. A, p. 47.

12 1 Edw. VI, Reg. Lib. A. Fo. 173.

13 Sanders Orders, I. p. 9.

14 Decree Roll P.R.O. Edw. VI, 5th Part, No. 11 on roll.

15 Cal. Pat. Rolls, Edw. VI. iv, p. 154.

16 4 & 5 P. & M. Reg. Lib. A. Fo. 93: Decree Roll P.R.O.C. 78'12 No. 39.

17 Cock v. Penrodocke, 2 & 3 Eliz. Reg. Lib. A, Fo. 50.

18 Harrison's Practice in Chancery (1767) p. 104.

19 16& 17 Jac. I. Reg. Lib. A. Fo. 1358.

20 3 & 4 Will. 4, c. 94, s. 10. By the same Act the deputy registers were reconstituted as registrars; the offices of register had lapsed at the beginning of the century.

21 Consol. Orders 23, rule 10.