Lois Annette Bath v David Edward John Escott
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judge | HHJ Paul Matthews |
| Judgment Date | 11 May 2017 |
| Neutral Citation | [2017] EWHC 1101 (Ch) |
| Court | Chancery Division |
| Date | 11 May 2017 |
| Docket Number | Case No: 3BS30636 |
[2017] EWHC 1101 (Ch)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
CHANCERY DIVISION
BRISTOL DISTRICT REGISTRY
Bristol Civil Justice Centre
2 Redcliff Street, Bristol, BS1 6GR
HHJ Paul Matthews
(sitting as a Judge of the High Court)
Case No: 3BS30636
Application dealt with on paper
The defendant applies by notice dated 26 April 2017 for an order that the audio recording of the judgment of District Judge Britton given in the Bristol District Registry of the High Court on 18 August 2014 be released
"to Truro County Court for voice recognition at the trial on 8 May 2017… for forced sale of the property. The transcript by Carter [sic] Walsh was generated one year later. It is not true to what was said in court."
The application was supported under box 10 of Form N244 by identifying certain information on which the applicant would be relying. There were two items. The first was a letter from the civil appeals office dated 19 May 2015, and the second was the transcript of a judgment given by District Judge Britton on 18 August 2014. The letter from the civil appeals office simply informed the applicant that the master of civil appeals had directed that a transcript of the judgment of HH Judge McCahill QC dated 26 August 2014 be ordered at the public expense. But, as the applicant says in his application notice, box 10, it is clear that the judge concerned was District Judge Britton. So the letter does not take the matter further. As to the transcript, it is unmarked, so that there is no indication of which part or parts the applicant objects to. There is no other evidence in support of the application.
At the outset, I should say that it is regrettable that I am dealing with this application on paper only after the date of 8 May 2017, when there was apparently to be a hearing at the County Court at Truro. This is because, when the papers were delivered to my room on 4 May, I was already in court, dealing with a busy whole day list, and unfortunately did not notice these papers, and in particular that there was a hearing listed for 8 May. On 5 May I was absent on annual leave giving a lecture elsewhere in the country, and on Monday 8 May I commenced what was intended to be a four-day trial.
I do not know what was the result of that hearing on 8 May in Truro. Nevertheless, I must still deal with the application. Normally I would list an application of this kind for hearing. But in the circumstances of this case, that is not necessary, as will be seen. However, it does mean that I have not had the benefit of any input from the respondent to the application. My judgment must be read subject to that caveat.
The starting point is that the applicant says that the transcript which has been provided of the judgment of District Judge Britton "is not true to what was said in court." I understand this to mean that it does not accurately set out the judgment which the judge actually delivered on the day. However, the applicant does not give any particulars of the differences to which he is referring. I do not know whether it is a matter of a few words, whether whole paragraphs been added, moved, or deleted, or indeed if the judgment was completely different from beginning to end.
Nevertheless, whatever the position, the mere fact that the transcript of the judgment, as approved by the judge, and sent to the parties, is in any way different from the reasons actually pronounced by the judge at the time of giving judgment, is not wrong in law. Nor does it in itself even give rise to concern. It is an entirely lawful and proper practice for a judge, on receiving a transcript of what was said at the time in giving judgment, to alter that transcript, not only to correct garbled or incorrect transcriptions, spelling and grammatical mistakes, and even matters of style, but also so that the reasons recorded accurately reflect why the judge made the decision that he or she made, even if they were not then properly or fully articulated.
The starting point is that it is orders of the court that express the courts' decisions. "Judgments", in the popular sense, express only the courts' reasons...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
R Rachel Nettleship v NHS South Tyneside Clinical Commissioning Group
...that order. Otherwise, though, it is a matter for the Judge's discretion as to what changes are appropriate.” 81 In Bath v Escott [2017] EWHC 1101 (Ch), the applicant claimed that the transcript of the judgment did not accurately set out the oral judgment which the judge had delivered in c......