Lindsay v Wood

The jurisdiction to reopen a judgment after it has been handed down exists but is exceptional. It requires strong reasons and will be exercised only very rarely. A party cannot ordinarily reopen contentious matters or advance a new case, since litigation is normally tried once. However, a material change of circumstances may justify reopening where subsequent genuine, non-contrived events render an earlier assessment certainly wrong in a measurable way. The court must also consider whether the applicant’s incapacity creates an exceptional need for protection, while scrutinising whether the proposed change is driven merely by financial advantage.

The claimant had sustained serious injury and, following an assessment of damages, the court assessed the future cost of his living in the United Kingdom or rejoining his wife and child in Australia. The claimant’s chance of obtaining permission to live in Australia was assessed at 20 per cent, and the parties agreed a damages calculation based on that assessment. Before the order was perfected, the claimant changed his position and stated that he and his wife intended to divorce, making continued residence in the United Kingdom more likely.

The claimant applied to reopen the part of the damages assessment concerning his future residence. The central issue was whether his status as a patient, combined with the subsequent change in circumstances, amounted to exceptional circumstances or strong reasons for reopening the case.

1. The court confirmed the existence of the jurisdiction to reopen a judgment after it has been handed down, commonly called the Barrell jurisdiction, recognised in [1973] 1 WLR 19. The jurisdiction is exceptional, requires strong reasons and is exercised only very rarely.

2. The authorities do not provide an exhaustive definition of exceptional circumstances. The expression must be applied in the context of the particular facts. Reopening contentious matters or allowing a party to add to or change its case should ordinarily receive summary rejection.

3. The guidance in Robinson v Bird [2003] EWCA (Civ) 1820 was adopted. A material alteration may exceptionally be justified in the interests of justice, including where subsequent events create a genuine and measurable basis for reconsidering an earlier assessment. A palpable error may also justify alteration, particularly where it would avoid an appeal.

4. The claimant’s status as a patient was capable of constituting the exceptional circumstance. Although intellectually intact, his altered personality, impetuosity and resulting inability to manage substantial sums had led to the protective order. The court therefore considered that protection and concern for his interests could extend further than they would for an ordinary litigant.

5. The application succeeded to the extent that the claimant was given an opportunity to persuade the court to reconsider the relevant assessment. The court emphasised that the proposed hearing would require close examination of his reasons, including whether the change was genuine and not financially motivated.