Editing Judgment (law) (section)

=== Common law ===

==== Australia ====

At the State level various State and Territory Courts allow for parties to obtain different types of judgments; including:

* ''Default judgment'' - if a defendant in a proceeding started by claim has not filed a notice of intention to defend and the time allowed under the State of Territory's rules;
* ''Summary judgment'' - A party may, at any time after a defendant files a notice of intention to defend, apply to the court under this part for judgment against the other party, if the court is satisfied that—
** the party has no real prospect of succeeding on all or a part of the plaintiff’s claim; and
** there is no need for a trial of the claim or the part of the claim.

However, a Court may set aside a default judgment if the defendant can prove a number of key issues.<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://stonegatelegal.com.au/setting-aside-default-judgment/|title=Setting Aside Default Judgment in Queensland|last=Davis|first=Wayne|date=2016-07-27|website=Stonegate Legal|language=en-AU|access-date=2019-11-11}}</ref>  In Queensland, in ''Unique Product Marketing Pty Ltd v Bortek Sales Pty Ltd'' [2000] QDC 314 Shanahan DCJ set-down some principles in relation to setting aside a regularly entered default judgment. They include:

# Whether there is a good reason why the defendant failed to file a defence;
# Whether there has been any delay by the defendant in bringing the application;
# The defendant’s conduct in the action before and after judgment;
# The defendant’s good faith;
# Whether the defendant has raised a prima facie defence on the merits; and
# Whether the plaintiff would be irreparably prejudiced if the judgment is set aside which cannot be adequately compensated by a suitable award of costs.<ref>{{Citation|title=Unique Product Marketing Pty Ltd v. Bortek Sales Pty Ltd|date=2000-11-01|url=http://www8.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/viewdoc/au/cases/qld/QDC/2000/314.html|issue=314|access-date=2019-11-11}}</ref>

==== Canada (excluding [[Quebec]]) ====

The [[Supreme Court of Canada]] has recognized a common law duty to provide "adequate" reasons for judgment and has stated that "the giving of reasoned judgments is central to the legitimacy of judicial institutions in the eyes of the public."<ref>''R. v. Sheppard'', 2002 S.C.C. 26 at para. 5, [2002] 1 S.C.R. 869.</ref> Determining whether reasons for judgment are adequate is a contextual exercise that may call for different information or depth of reasoning based on the circumstances of the case.<ref>''R. v. Sheppard'', 2002 S.C.C. 26 at para. 19, [2002] 1 S.C.R. 869.</ref> In general, Canadian courts are expected to provide reasons for judgment as a duty to the public at large,<ref>''R. v. Sheppard'', 2002 S.C.C. 26 at para. 22, [2002] 1 S.C.R. 869.</ref> to demonstrate that the judge or judges have engaged with the parties' pleadings,<ref>''R. v. Sheppard'', 2002 S.C.C. 26 at para. 23, [2002] 1 S.C.R. 869.</ref> to explain why the parties won or lost,<ref>''R. v. Sheppard'', 2002 S.C.C. 26 at para. 24, [2002] 1 S.C.R. 869.</ref> and to allow for meaningful appellate review (in the event that the case may be appealed).<ref>''R. v. Sheppard'', 2002 S.C.C. 26 at para. 25, [2002] 1 S.C.R. 869.</ref>

With the above guiding principles in mind, Canadian courts must "read [the reasons] as a whole, in the context of the evidence, the arguments and the trial, with an appreciation of the purposes or functions for which they are delivered..." to determine whether the reasons for judgment are adequate.<ref>''R. v. R.E.M.'', 2008 S.C.C. 51 at para. 16, [2008] 3 S.C.R. 3.</ref> The reasons must tell the reader why the judgment was made, but do not need to tell the reader how the judge made the decision rendered in the judgment.<ref>''R. v. R.E.M.'', 2008 S.C.C. 51 at para. 17, [2008] 3 S.C.R. 3.</ref>

Provincial rules of civil procedure provide further guidance relating to specific types of judgments. For example:

* ''Declaratory judgment'': a declaratory judgment can be made by the court regardless of whether a remedy is being claimed.<ref>''Queen’s Bench Act'', R.S.S. 1998, ch. Q-1.01, § 11(b)(iii) (Can.).</ref>
* ''Default judgment'': a default judgment can be sought by the plaintiff where a defendant “has been noted in default” for certain claims.<ref>''Courts of Justice Act'', R.R.O. 1990, Reg. 194, § 19.04 (Can.).</ref>
* ''Summary judgment'': a summary judgment may be available if “there is no genuine issue requiring a trial with respect to a claim or defence”  or if “the parties agree to have all or part of the claim determined by a summary judgment and the court is satisfied that it is appropriate to grant summary judgment.”<ref>''Courts of Justice Act'', R.R.O. 1990, Reg. 194, § 20.04(2)(b) (Can.).</ref>

==== Hong Kong ====

In ''Mak Kang Hoi v Ho Yuk Wah David'', the [[Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal]] stated that 'litigants are entitled to have their cases decided with reasonable promptitude'. The Court considered that the 'extraordinary' and 'inordinate' delay of 30 months which the trial judge ([[High Court (Hong Kong)#Recorders|Madam Recorder]] [[Gladys Li]] SC) took in handing down her reserved judgment was 'wholly excessive' and 'extremely regrettable', and recognised that 'it may lead to a denial of justice as a Judge's memory of the evidence, the witnesses, the submissions and the trial itself may fade with time', but nonetheless upheld her decision as it was 'objectively sound'.<ref>{{Cite Hong Kong case|litigants=Mak Kang Hoi v Ho Yuk Wah David|list=FACV|number=20|year=2006|id=56559}}, reported at (2007) 10 HKCFAR 552</ref>

Similarly, in ''Dr Yip Chi Him Roger v Lee Kwok Leung'', the trial judge (Mr Justice Louis Chan) delivered his reserved judgment over 32 months after the trial. The [[Court of Appeal (Hong Kong)|Court of Appeal]] held that 'notwithstanding the regrettable delay in giving judgment, we come to the firm and clear view that the Judge gave cogent and adequate reasons for his findings and there is no error of law or facts in his findings', and dismissed the appeal.<ref>{{Cite Hong Kong case|litigants=Dr Yip Chi Him Roger v Lee Kwok Leung|list=CACV|number=174|year=2015|id=106772}}</ref>

Delays have occurred in a number of [[Judicial review in Hong Kong|judicial review]] cases. For example, in ''Data Key Ltd v Director of Lands'', ''Lui Yuet Tin v Commissioner for Transport'' and ''DI v Director of Immigration'', Mr Justice Au handed down his reserved judgment 26 to 28 months after the hearing.<ref>{{Cite Hong Kong case|litigants=Data Key Ltd v Director of Lands|list=HCAL|number=164|year=2014|id=113908}}, reported at [2018] 2 HKLRD 158</ref><ref>{{Cite Hong Kong case|litigants=Lui Yuet Tin v Commissioner for Transport|list=HCAL|number=42|year=2014|id=114910}}</ref><ref>{{Cite Hong Kong case|litigants=DI v Director of Immigration|list=HCAL|number=135|year=2014|id=112810}}</ref>

The [[Court of Appeal (Hong Kong)|Court of Appeal]] has on occasion delivered its reasons for judgment a significant period of time after the hearing. For example, in ''China Medical Technologies v Samson Tsang Tak Yung'', the reasons for judgment, as well as the reserved decision as to costs, were delivered by [[Aarif Barma|Mr Justice Barma, JA]] after a delay of 34 months.<ref>{{Cite Hong Kong case|litigants=China Medical Technologies v Samson Tsang Tak Yung|list=CACV|number=197|year=2014|id=113864}}</ref>

Similar delays have also been encountered in cases in the [[District Court (Hong Kong)|District Court]]. For example, in ''Leung Chi Wang v Leung Yui Shing'' (decided by Deputy District Judge Richard Leung),<ref>{{Cite Hong Kong case|litigants=Leung Chi Wang v Leung Yui Shing|list=DCCJ|number=3435|year=2012|id=109138}}</ref> ''Kan Yay Shan v Mo You Mut'' (decided by Deputy District Judge Simon Lui),<ref>{{Cite Hong Kong case|litigants=Kan Yay Shan v Mo You Mut|list=DCMP|number=1886|year=2011|id=108933}}</ref> ''Golden Field Glass Works v Yeung Chun Keung'' (decided by Deputy District Judge Timon Shum),<ref>{{Cite Hong Kong case|litigants=Golden Field Glass Works v Yeung Chun Keung|list=DCCJ|number=1942|year=2012|id=108933}}</ref> and ''Han Mei Fang v All Occupiers of Flat F, 6th Floor, Kapok Mansion'' (decided by Deputy District Judge Samson Hung),<ref>{{Cite Hong Kong case|litigants=Han Mei Fang v All Occupiers of Flat F, 6th Floor, Kapok Mansion|list=DCMP|number=3071|year=2012|id=112486}}</ref> judgment was handed down between 31 and 33 months after the trial.

In ''Welltus v Fornton Knitting'', after a trial which lasted 12 days, the trial judge ([[High Court (Hong Kong)|Deputy High Court Judge]] Ian Carlson) took over 10 months to hand down his reserved judgment. The [[Court of Appeal (Hong Kong)|Court of Appeal]] held that the trial judge failed to give adequate reasons for his decision and stated that 'the failure to deal with [one of the critical issues was] probably attributable to the delay in the preparation of the judgment'. The Court of Appeal therefore set aside the decision and ordered a re-trial before another judge of the [[Court of First Instance (Hong Kong)|Court of First Instance]].<ref>{{Cite Hong Kong case|litigants=Welltus Limited v Fornton Knitting Company Limited|list=CACV|number=268|year=2011|id=86174}}, reported at [2013] 5 HKC 106</ref>

In ''HKSAR v Yip Kim Po'', after a criminal trial lasting over one year, the trial judge (His Honour Judge Kevin Browne) gave Reasons for Verdict with 1,753 paragraphs spanning 465 pages. The [[Court of Appeal (Hong Kong)|Court of Appeal]] stated that the 'sheer length of the judge's Reasons for Verdict brings with it considerable difficulties for the appeal courts and any other newcomer to the case in trying to unravel the relevant evidence and identify the real issues at trial.  An unduly lengthy set of Reasons also creates problems for the judge himself in focussing on the essential issues at trial so as to explain, clearly, concisely and expediently, why he came to the decision he did'. The Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal endorsed the remarks made by the [[Court of Appeal (Hong Kong)|Court of Appeal]], and stated that 'Whilst a judge should keep a record of the evidence and submissions, it is not the function of a judgment to be that record. Instead, the primary purpose of a judgment is: to identify the ultimate issues in the case; to set out, qualitatively by reference to the evidence that is accepted or rejected, the primary facts which the judge finds; to relate those findings to the factual issues in the case; to show how any inference has been drawn; to make the necessary findings of fact; to identify and apply the appropriate legal principles; and, ultimately, to make the appropriate dispositive orders'.<ref>{{Cite Hong Kong case|litigants=HKSAR v Yip Kim Po|list=FAMC|number=12|year=2013|id=92138}}, reported at (2014) 17 HKCFAR 202</ref>

In ''HKSAR v Tin's Label Factory Ltd'', at the end of the hearing of the appeal in the [[Court of First Instance (Hong Kong)|Court of First Instance]], Mr Justice [[Pang Kin-kee]] immediately delivered an oral decision allowing the appeal, with written reasons to be handed down at a later date. 7 months later, the Judge handed down the written reasons for judgment dismissing the appeal, a result which was inconsistent with the oral decision announced at the end of the hearing. After the appellant contacted the Judge's clerk, later the same day the Judge retracted the 'incorrect version' and delivered the 'correct version' of the written reasons for judgment. The correction was made before the court order and record had been perfected. The Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal stated that 'It must be reiterated and strongly emphasised that judges at all levels of court have a duty to deliver judgments within a reasonable time after the conclusion of the hearing. Where an oral decision has been given of the result, with reasons to follow later, it is incumbent upon the judge to deliver the reasons within a reasonable time. This is important not only for the parties, but it is essential to the maintenance of public confidence in the administration of justice. In the present case, the delay of seven-and-a-half months was unjustified'. The Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal further stated that 'In handing down the 1st written judgment purporting to set out his reasons for "dismissing" the appeal on 15 May 2008, the Judge must have forgotten about his earlier oral decision allowing the appeal and omitted to check the file. The delay in preparing his reasons must have contributed to this oversight'.<ref>{{Cite Hong Kong case|litigants=HKSAR v Tin's Label Factory Ltd|list=FACC|number=5|year=2008|id=63525}}, reported at (2008) 11 HKCFAR 637</ref>

==== New Zealand ==== 

In accordance with section 170 of the Senior Courts Act 2016, the [[Chief Justice of New Zealand]], the President of the Court of Appeal and the Chief High Court Judge publish information about the indicative delivery times for reserved judgments in the [[Supreme Court of New Zealand|Supreme Court]], [[Court of Appeal of New Zealand|Court of Appeal]] and [[High Court of New Zealand|High Court]] respectively. As of 2017, the [[Supreme Court of New Zealand|Supreme Court]] 'will endeavour to deliver judgment in an appeal within six months from the last day of the hearing'.<ref>{{cite web|url=https://www.courtsofnz.govt.nz/the-courts/supreme-court/judgment-delivery-expectations|title=Judgment delivery expectations — Courts of New Zealand|website=www.courtsofnz.govt.nz}}</ref> In the [[Court of Appeal of New Zealand|Court of Appeal]] and the [[High Court of New Zealand|High Court]], most decisions are delivered within three months of the last day of the hearing.<ref>{{cite web|url=https://www.courtsofnz.govt.nz/the-courts/court-of-appeal/court-of-appeal-judgment-delivery-expectations-inquiry-process-and-recent-judgment-timeliness|title=Judgment delivery expectations — Courts of New Zealand|website=www.courtsofnz.govt.nz}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|url=https://www.courtsofnz.govt.nz/the-courts/high-court/high-court-judgment-delivery-expectations-inquiry-process-and-recent-judgment-timeliness|title=Judgment delivery expectations — Courts of New Zealand|website=www.courtsofnz.govt.nz}}</ref>

==== United Kingdom ==== 

The [[Court of Appeal of England and Wales|Court of Appeal of England and Wales (Civil Division)]] has affirmed a common law duty to give reasons for a judgment, subject to some exceptions (such as an oral judgment or a summary judgment).<ref>''Flannery v Halifax Estate Agencies Ltd'', [1999] E.W.C.A. Civ. 811 at para 12, [2000] 1 W.L.R. 377 (U.K.).</ref> The Court also noted that providing reasons for judgment "is a function of due process, and therefore of justice."<ref name="auto9">''Flannery v Halifax Estate Agencies Ltd'', [1999] E.W.C.A. Civ. 811 at para 14, [2000] 1 W.L.R. 377 (U.K.).</ref> Interested parties must be able to determine why the court has made the decision in question. Furthermore, providing reasons for judgment serves a practical purpose insofar as it necessarily requires the court to engage in thoughtful consideration of the cases presented.<ref name="auto9"/> However, the Court also noted that the exercise of providing reasons for judgment is contextual and the standard of what is acceptable for a judgment will vary depending on the circumstances.<ref name="auto9"/> The court appears to propose that the ultimate requirement is the court explaining, in some way, why it has made the decision in question.<ref name="auto9"/>

The [[Supreme Court of the United Kingdom|UK Supreme Court]] has stated that where there has been a relatively long and expensive hearing/trial, it is important that the judgment (i) clearly identifies all the issues of fact and expert opinion that are in issue, and (ii) resolves in clear terms all such issues which are relevant on the judge's view of the law, and those issues which would be relevant if the judge's view of the law turns out to be wrong. Otherwise, there is a real risk of a complete or partial rehearing being ordered, which would bring the administration of law into disrepute.<ref>{{cite BAILII|litigants=Coventry & Ors v Lawrence & Anor|court=UKSC|division=|year=2014|num=13|para=17|eucase=|parallelcite=[2014] 1 AC 822|date=26 February 2014|courtname=Supreme Court of the United Kingdom|juris=England and Wales|ref=}}</ref>

Further, ''The Civil Procedure Rules 1998''<ref>{{Cite web |title=Rules & Practice Directions - Civil Procedure Rules |url=https://www.justice.gov.uk/courts/procedure-rules/civil/rules |access-date=2024-04-25 |website=www.justice.gov.uk |language=en}}</ref> state that a judgment or order takes effect on the day it is rendered unless the court specifies otherwise<ref>{{Cite web |title=Rules & Practice Directions - Civil Procedure Rules |url=https://www.justice.gov.uk/courts/procedure-rules/civil/rules |access-date=2024-04-25 |website=www.justice.gov.uk |language=en}}</ref> and provide additional guidance on different types of judgments.

* ''Consent judgment'': a consent judgment is available where the parties agree on the terms of the judgment or order that should be made.<ref>{{Cite web |title=Rules & Practice Directions - Civil Procedure Rules |url=https://www.justice.gov.uk/courts/procedure-rules/civil/rules |access-date=2024-04-25 |website=www.justice.gov.uk |language=en}}</ref>
* ''Declaratory judgment'': a declaratory judgment can be made by the courts regardless of whether a remedy is being claimed.<ref>{{Cite web |title=Rules & Practice Directions - Civil Procedure Rules |url=https://www.justice.gov.uk/courts/procedure-rules/civil/rules |access-date=2024-04-25 |website=www.justice.gov.uk |language=en}}</ref>
* ''Default judgment'': a default judgment is available where the defendant does not file acknowledgment of service or fails to file a defence.<ref>{{Cite web |title=Rules & Practice Directions - Civil Procedure Rules |url=https://www.justice.gov.uk/courts/procedure-rules/civil/rules |access-date=2024-04-25 |website=www.justice.gov.uk |language=en}}</ref> A default judgment may be set aside or varied if he defendant demonstrates “a real prospect of successfully defending the claim” or where exceptional circumstances apply.<ref>{{Cite web |title=Rules & Practice Directions - Civil Procedure Rules |url=https://www.justice.gov.uk/courts/procedure-rules/civil/rules |access-date=2024-04-25 |website=www.justice.gov.uk |language=en}}</ref>
* ''Summary judgment'': a summary judgment is made without requiring a trial.<ref>{{Cite web |title=Rules & Practice Directions - Civil Procedure Rules |url=https://www.justice.gov.uk/courts/procedure-rules/civil/rules |access-date=2024-04-25 |website=www.justice.gov.uk |language=en}}</ref>  A court may grant a summary judgment if either the claimant or the defendant has no prospect of succeeding and “there is no other compelling reason why the case or issue should be disposed of at a trial.”<ref>{{Cite web |title=Rules & Practice Directions - Civil Procedure Rules |url=https://www.justice.gov.uk/courts/procedure-rules/civil/rules |access-date=2024-04-25 |website=www.justice.gov.uk |language=en}}</ref>

==== United States ==== 

At the federal level, a judgment is defined in the ''United States Federal Rules of Civil Procedure'' as "a decree and any order from which an appeal lies" and does not include "recitals of pleadings, a master's report, or a record of prior proceedings."<ref>Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(a); see also Fed. R. Bankr. P. 9002(5).</ref>

A judgment must address all of the issues raised with respect to the rights and liabilities of the parties. If a judgment is rendered without addressing all the rights and liabilities, the action is not ended and the claims of the parties may be revised before the entry of a judgment that determines all of the issues raised.<ref>Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b).</ref>

* ''Default judgment'': If the defendant fails to plead or otherwise defend against the action, a default judgment may be entered.<ref>Fed. R. Civ. P. 55(a).</ref> If the plaintiff's claim is for a fixed amount of money, then the plaintiff can request that the clerk enter judgment for that amount along with costs against the defendant.<ref>Fed. R. Civ. P. 55(b)(1).</ref> Otherwise, the plaintiff will be required to appear before the court and present evidence for the damages or relief requested to receive a default judgment.<ref>Fed. R. Civ. P. 55(b)(2).</ref> If the defendant can demonstrate "good cause" for not responding to the default judgment, then the court may set aside the judgment at its discretion.<ref>Fed. R. Civ. P. 55(c).</ref>
* ''Interlocutory injunction'': A party can seek an interlocutory injunction relating to a proceeding. The court must provide reasons for either granting or denying an interlocutory injunction.<ref>Fed. R. Civ. P. 52(a)(2).</ref>
* ''Summary judgment'': A party can seek a summary judgment on all or part of its claim.<ref name="auto10">Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a).</ref> The court will grant a summary judgment if the party seeking the judgment demonstrates that there is no real dispute regarding the facts.<ref name="auto10"/> The court must provide reasons for either granting or denying a summary judgment.<ref name="auto10"/>
[[File:Judgment_of_Debt,_Greene_County,_Pennsylvania,_1815.jpg|left|thumb|Judicial judgment of debt, Greene County, Pennsylvania, 1815]]
A state code of civil procedure provides its own rules relating to judgments in state courts. For instance, California's ''Code of Civil Procedure'' provides some general rules regarding the purpose of and requirements for judgments<ref>''California Code of Civil Procedure'', C.C.P. § 577-579.</ref> as well as rules relating to summary judgments,<ref>''California Code of Civil Procedure'', C.C.P. § 437.c-438.</ref> default judgments,<ref>California Code of Civil Procedure, C.C.P. § 1297.253.</ref> and interim or interlocutory judgments.<ref>California Code of Civil Procedure, C.C.P. § 1297.91–1297.95.</ref>

The [[Full Faith and Credit Clause]] of the [[United States Constitution|federal Constitution]] generally requires states to recognize the records and judgments of other states.