Slip rule meaning

Prepared in partnership with 4 Pump Court. This checklist sets out the principal issues you need to consider upon receiving an adjudicator’s decision. The main issues At the very outset, there are three principal points that warrant attention: are there any mistakes in the decision that could be corrected under the slip rule? is the outcome capable of enforcement? is the outcome acceptable, or is a final determination required and, if so, can this be pursued through Part 8 proceedings? Enforceability Issues It is important to assess whether the decision is enforceable, or whether it may properly be challenged. Please note that the grounds for challenging an adjudicator’s decision are limited—see Practice Note: Resisting enforcement of an adjudication decision...

What are the practical implications of this case? InterDigital Inc and other companies v Optis Cellular Technology LLC and others [2025] EWCA Civ 1263 delivers clear direction for those engaged in patent litigation, extending to third parties with a stake in confidential material at issue. Notably, it was the non-parties—rather than Apple and Optis—who sought permission to appeal the High Court decision. The court’s acknowledgement of third-party rights may prompt greater participation by non-party stakeholders where disputes turn on third party licences. By backing a single approach to redactions and outlining how factual mistakes can be corrected, the court has sharpened understanding of the treatment of confidential information in UK proceedings. Even so, the judgment stresses that any departure from open justice must be exceptional and justified by compelling reasons, so applicants must articulate and justify their proposals. Citing his reasoning in Unwired Planet v Huawei [2020] UKSC 37, Lord Justice Birss underscored that broad, indeterminate assertions about shielding a company’s ‘interests’ will not succeed...

Williams v Williams [2024] EWHC 733 (Fam), [2024] All ER (D) 65 (Apr) What are the practical implications of this case? The decision is noteworthy because it supplies the first judicial guidance on whether a final divorce order can be undone where the application was correctly and procedurally advanced and granted, even though the client had not, in fact, given any instructions for the application to be issued. The court’s reasoning confirms that rescinding a final divorce order is, at best, a theoretical possibility in exceptionally limited situations; the procedural mechanisms in FPR 2010, SI 2010/2955, r 4.1(6), or the so‑called ‘slip’ rule in FPR 2010, SI 2010/2955, r 29.16, are not available when the mistake did not stem from the court. A key factor highlighted is the societal significance of marital status and the consequent need for certainty as to whether individuals are married or divorced that is clear, reliable, and stable in law always...

Statutory adjudication—Adjudicator’s power under Scheme for Construction Contracts to correct a decision to remove a clerical error or typographical error (McLaughlin & Harvey v LJJ) McLaughlin & Harvey Ltd v LJJ Ltd [2024] EWHC 1032 (TCC) What are the practical implications of this case? There are concrete consequences for adjudicators and those engaged in adjudication. The TCC has emphasised that paragraph 22A(1) of the Scheme for Construction Contracts 1998—allowing an adjudicator, on their own initiative or at a party’s application, to correct their decision to remove an accidental clerical or typographical slip—operates within strictly confined bounds. It does not authorise the adjudicator to rectify mistakes that go to the reasoning or intention underpinning the decision. Where an adjudicator seeks to go beyond mere clerical or typographical correction, they risk producing an amended or revised decision that is not a valid determination, leaving the original decision in place. Adjudicators are cautioned not to revisit, modify, or “clarify” the evidence and the law under the guise of correcting a clerical...

This Practice Note centres on appeals against conviction, sentence, and related orders pursued in the Court of Appeal Criminal Division (CACD) under the Criminal Appeal Act 1968 (CAA 1968), and in accordance with the Criminal Procedure Rules 2025 (CrimPR 2025), SI 2025/909, Parts 36 and 39. It also considers applications advanced by the Attorney General under section 36 of the Criminal Justice Act 1972 (CJA 1972) or section 36 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988 (CJA 1988). It outlines how an appeal is commenced, namely by lodging an application for leave to appeal directly with the Court of Appeal. For further information on obtaining certificates declaring a case fit for appeal from the Crown Court, see Practice Note: Criminal appeals—certificates of fitness to appeal from the Crown Court. For detailed guidance on progressing an appeal in the CACD, see Practice Note: Conducting an appeal in the Court of Appeal Criminal Division (CACD). When can an appeal be made to the Court of Appeal? An appeal to the CACD...

Slip rule An adjudicator may, within a reasonable period after handing down their decision, put right any accidental error or omission. Commonly described as the ‘slip rule’, it operates where the adjudicator’s mistake is an inadvertent slip that fails to capture their first intention. Though this principle was implied by common law in the absence of any contrary agreement, it is now set out expressly in section 108(3A) of the Housing Grants, Construction and Regeneration Act 1996 (HGCRA 1996). Section 108(3A) was introduced by the Local Democracy, Economic Development and Construction Act 2009 and applies to contracts entered into on or after 1 October 2011 in England and Wales, and on or after 1 November 2011 in Scotland. Under HGCRA 1996, s 108(3A), a contract must contain a written term permitting the adjudicator to correct their decision so as to remove a clerical or typographical error arising by accident or omission...

Correction of an arbitral award under AA 1996 Once an award is delivered, parties and their solicitors should review it meticulously to identify any mistakes arising from an accidental slip or omission, or any ambiguity that ought to be clarified or removed. Naturally, they will also be looking for substantive errors that might ground a challenge or an appeal, but they must also ensure the tribunal is given the chance to address any error capable of correction under the ‘slip rule’ in section 57 of the Arbitration Act 1996 (AA 1996). That rule operates as an exception to the position that the tribunal is functus officio once it has given its award—meaning it no longer has power or authority over the arbitration (eg H v W)...