Tracy & Anor v Jones [2002] EWCA Civ 1032 (10 July 2002)

The judge was entitled to correct the obvious mistake in the original costs order under the slip rule, and there was no procedural unfairness or substantive merit in the applicants' complaints.

Citation: [2002] EWCA Civ 1032
Parties: Claimant/applicant: Edward Tracy; Claimant/applicant: Mary Dorothy Tracy; Defendant/respondent: Margaret Elizabeth Jones
Jurisdiction: England and Wales
Judgment Date: 10 July 2002
Procedural Posture: Civil Appeal / Application for Permission to Appeal and Related Relief After Correction of Costs Order
Outcome: Applications refused
Legal Topics: Slip Rule, Correction of Orders, Costs, Natural Justice, Vexatious Litigation

Civil Procedure Slip Rule Correction of Orders Costs Natural Justice Vexatious Litigation

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 2 Authorities cited 1 Party arguments 2

Parties

Edward Tracy

Claimant/applicant

Mary Dorothy Tracy

Claimant/applicant

Margaret Elizabeth Jones

Defendant/respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Application for Permission to Appeal and Related Relief After Correction of Costs Order

Legal Issues

1 Whether the judge was entitled to correct the original costs order under the slip rule
2 Whether procedural fairness was breached by correcting the order before the applicants' reply period expired
3 Whether the applicants' allegations of bias, bad faith, and ultra vires acts rendered the orders null and void

Ratio Decidendi

The judge was entitled to correct the obvious mistake in the original costs order under the slip rule, and there was no procedural unfairness or substantive merit in the applicants' complaints.

Court Disposition

Applications refused

Orders

Refusal of application to adjourn hearing
Refusal of permission to appeal