Case No. EWFC-48

[2022] EWCA Civ 1002 in which Baker LJ said this about the judicial response to requests for clarification of judgments:“58.In the present case, counsel submitted carefully crafted and detailed “points of clarification raised on behalf of the intervenor”. It is neither necessary nor appropriate to set them out in full in this judgment. I make it clear that counsel was manifestly not seeking to reargue the case nor water down the judgment. But in my view the points of clarification raised went beyond what is intended by the authorities and the recorder was not obliged to answer them. The recorder’s refusal to respond to any of the points of clarification was not a ground of appeal raised on behalf of the intervenor. In my view, had it been raised, it would not have led to a successful appeal.59.When giving judgment in a complex children’s case, no judge will deal with every point of evidence or every argument advanced on behalf of every party. The purpose of permitting requests for clarification to be submitted is not to require the judge to cover every point but rather, as the Practice Note emphasised, “to raise with the judge and draw to his attention any material omission in the judgment, any genuine query or ambiguity which arises on the judgment, and any perceived lack of reasons or other perceived deficiency in the judge’s reasoning process.” It is therefore rarely if ever appropriate for counsel to enquire as to the weight which the judge has given to a particular piece of evidence. If, as frequently happens, a judge draws together various strands of the evidence in giving reasons, it is neither necessary nor appropriate for counsel to separate out each strand and enquire what weight the judge has or has not attached to each piece, unless it can be said that in giving his reasons in a general way the judge has failed to address material parts of the evidence, or has created an ambiguity, or has failed to provide sufficient reasons for his decision.”51.Here, the father’s document headed “Corrections and Clarifications” ran to some six closely typed pages, of which three sought clarification of the judge’s reasoning. I note that the judge was asked about the weight he had given to at least four matters raised in the father’s submissions and responded by indicating he had given little weight to these matters in the context of the evidence as a whole. This appeal was argued, in part, on the judge’s alleged failure to give adequate reasons for his decision but, as I have already indicated, I do not consider that the judge failed to do so either generally or because he failed to provide a substantive response to the overly lengthy corrections and clarifications document submitted by the father. Though it might be said that the judge expressed himself in general terms rather than expanding his judgment to encompass the particular matters raised by the father, it is my view that the judge adequately considered the evidence and the extensive submissions made when reaching his decision.52.Thus, in conclusion, the judge did that which was required of him by giving sufficient reasoning for his decision.