In R + V Verischerung AG v Risk Insurance and Reinsurance Solutions SA and others – Butterworths 30.1.07 the second and third Defendants, shortly before judgment was handed down, objected to the draft order on the ground that it should not apply to them. They also applied for permission to appeal the main judgment, on the ground that there was no factual or legal basis for any finding against them. The instant hearing was concerned with their attempt to set aside the main judgment and consequential orders as applied to them. The application was made under the slip rule contained in CPR 40.12, and the power of the court to revoke or vary an order under CPR 3.1(7).

The Commercial Court dismissed the application, holding that CPR 40.12 could be used to do no more than correct typographical errors or matters that were clearly genuine slips or mistakes. It was well established that the slip rule could not be used to correct errors of substance - it was not open to the High Court under the slip rule contained in CPR 40.12 or the power to revoke or vary an order under CPR 3.1(7) to alter a holding in an earlier High Court judgment in a manner which amounted to an appeal. The proper course was for the dissatisfied party to appeal to the Court of Appeal.