A senior specialist judge has recently been criticised in trenchant terms by the Court of Appeal for delivering a written judgment that did little more than to replicate the submissions of counsel for the successful party. He seems to have used the electronic (Word) copy of the submissions, deleted the barrister's signature and made a few editorial changes, but left approximately 94% of the original drafting in place.
All three CA judges were concerned about the appearance this gave that the judge was not discharging his core functions of applying his own critical judgment to the issues and then explaining to the losing party why he has lost. This risked leaving the losing party with a "deep sense of grievance" and the feeling that the judge "has never properly engaged with the case when forming his judgment".
This is clearly intended as a message to the judiciary to be seen to do justice to both sides' arguments when delivering a judgment.
See: Crinion and Crinion v IG Markets Ltd  EWCA Civ 587.