In (1) Earl Of Malmesbury (2) William John Maltby (3) Kathleen Hobbs (4) Wilsco 283 Ltd v Strutt & Parker (A Partnership) – Lawtel 16.10.07 the court determined a particular issue, and an order to reflect what had occurred in the judgment was agreed between counsel and, in accordance with CPR 40.2(2)(6), was submitted to the court office and sealed. Paragraph 1 of the order provided that "there be a trial on the outstanding aspects of quantum needed to assess the damages to be paid".

The Queen’s Bench court held that it was well-established that where a judgment had been delivered, either orally or by handing down, the judge might in appropriate circumstances alter it at any time prior to an order giving effect to the judgment. Once there was such an order it operated as a bar to the judge's jurisdiction to alter the judgment as the judge was functus officio and the only way forward for a dissatisfied party was to appeal. In the instant case, the order was a bar to the court's jurisdiction to reconsider any matter determined by the judgment.