Doctor A & Ors v Ward & Anor

The slip rule permits correction or clarification of an order so that it accurately gives effect to the judgment, but it cannot be used to make a substantive or materially wider alteration. Where an order relaxes the statutory restriction in section 12 of the Administration of Justice Act 1960 for specified parties, a third party may be given corresponding liberty to publish only within the same intended limits. The amendment must preserve separate in personam restrictions imposed by the order. A wider modification requires a formal application on another proper basis.

The judgment concerned the form of an order made after earlier proceedings about William Ward. The BBC applied on paper to amend paragraph 1 of an order dated 20 January 2010 under the slip rule. The paragraph gave the respondents liberty, notwithstanding section 12 of the Administration of Justice Act 1960, to publish documents and information relating to the proceedings. The proposed amendments would have broadly protected third parties who published material supplied by the respondents.

The court had already refused the only application for permission to appeal, and the parties did not pursue permission from the Court of Appeal. The issue was whether the proposed clarification could properly be made under the slip rule, and, if so, what wording preserved the restrictions in paragraphs 2 and 3 of the order.

1. Application granted in limited form. The order dated 20 January 2010 was amended under the slip rule by inserting wording permitting a person other than the respondents to publish the relevant documents and information only where the respondents had provided them expressly for that purpose.
2. The slip rule permits an order to be corrected or clarified so that it properly reflects the judgment and the court’s intention. It does not permit a substantive widening of the decision or a change that removes a decision deliberately left to the respondents. A wider amendment would require a formal application based on some other proper ground.
3. The wording had to remain framed as liberty to publish notwithstanding section 12 of the Administration of Justice Act 1960, rather than as a general declaration that publication would not constitute contempt. That distinction preserved the separate in personam restrictions imposed by paragraphs 2 and 3.
4. A third party who knowingly acted in circumstances prohibited by those restrictions could be liable for contempt of court. The court referred to Z Ltd v A-Z and AA-LL [1982] QB 558 in identifying that form of contempt, and noted that the principle that a person acting through another acts personally would prevent deliberate evasion through an intermediary.
5. The order was made pursuant to rule 1.3 of the Family Proceedings Rules 1991 and Order 20 rule 11 of the Rules of the Supreme Court 1965.

1. High Court (Family Division): Earlier judgment given on 8 January 2010: [2010] EWHC 16 (Fam).
2. High Court (Family Division): Permission to appeal refused on 9 February 2010: [2010] EWHC 205 (Fam). The applicants did not seek permission from the Court of Appeal.
3. High Court (Family Division): The present court amended the 20 January 2010 order under the slip rule in limited terms.