Bath v Escott

Bath v Escott

There is no legal duty for a judge to approve a transcript limited to the exact spoken words; the judge may revise the transcript to accurately reflect the reasons for the decision. The application lacks evidence of improper revision or false approval and is therefore dismissed.

Parties
Claimant: Lois Annette Bath; Defendant: David Edward John Escott
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
11 May 2017
Procedural Posture
Application / Ruling on Paper
Outcome
application dismissed as totally without merit
Legal Topics
Transcript Accuracy, Judicial Revision of Judgments, Court Orders Vs Reasons
Civil Procedure Transcript Accuracy Judicial Revision of Judgments Court Orders Vs Reasons

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 5 Authorities cited 6 Party arguments 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Lois Annette Bath

Claimant

David Edward John Escott

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Application / Ruling on Paper

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the court should release the audio recording of a judgment for voice recognition due to alleged inaccuracies in the transcript

Ratio Decidendi

There is no legal duty for a judge to approve a transcript limited to the exact spoken words; the judge may revise the transcript to accurately reflect the reasons for the decision. The application lacks evidence of improper revision or false approval and is therefore dismissed.

Court Disposition

application dismissed as totally without merit

Orders

  • application is dismissed
  • not listed for hearing under CPR rule 23.8(c)