- Considered — Libyan Investment Authority & Ors v King & Ors 2020-12-14
“…ut I accept that that is too narrow a view. The rule was considered by the Court of Appeal in Bristol-Myers Squibb Co v Baker Norton Pharmaceuticals Inc (No 2) [2001] EWCA Civ 414. There the trial judge had ordered an unsuccessful claimant to pay the costs of the two defendants, but had limited the defendants to one set of costs between …”
- Cited — Libyan Investment Authority & Ors v King & Ors 2020-12-14
“…cts the court’s intention and to prevent the order from having an unintended consequence: see Bristol-Myers Squibb Co v Baker Norton Pharmaceuticals Ltd (No 2) [2001] EWCA Civ 414, [2001] RPC 913.…”
- Cited — The Secretary of State for the Home Department v Devani 2020-05-07
“…that rule. The power is there to enable a misprint to be corrected, or to make the judge's meaning clear: Bristol-Myers Squibb v Baker NortonPharmaceuticals Inc[2001] EWCA Civ 414. The power cannot be used to change the substance of a judgment or order: further authorities are cited at CPR 40.12.1 in the White Book. It is because the jud…”
- Cited — Canada Goose UK Retail Ltd & Anor v Unknown Persons 2020-03-05
“…lip, but it does not enable a court to have second or additional thoughts: see, for example, Bristol-Myers Squibb Co. v Baker Noton Pharmaceuticals Inc (No. 2) [2001] EWCA Civ 414, [2001] RPC 45.…”
- Considered — Timokhina v Timokhin (Rev 1) 2019-07-18
“…Under the ‘slip rule’ (CPR 40.12) as considered by the Court of Appeal in Bristol-Myers Squibb Co. v Baker Norton Pharmaceuticals inc. (2) [2001] EWCA Civ 414 (Bristol-Myers). Put shortly, Bristol-Myers emphasised that the slip rule cannot be used to enable the court to have second or additional thoughts, and that on…”