Judgment (law)

In law, a judgment is a decision of a court regarding the rights and liabilities of parties in a legal action
or proceeding.[1][2] Judgments also generally provide the court's explanation of why it has chosen to
make a particular court order.[3]

Speakers of British English tend to use the term at the appellate level as synonymous with judicial
opinion.[4] American English speakers prefer to maintain a clear distinction between the opinion of an
appellate court (setting forth reasons for the disposition of an appeal) and the judgment of an appellate
court (the pronouncement of the disposition itself).[4]

In Canadian English, the phrase "reasons for judgment" is often used interchangeably with "judgment,"
although the former refers to the court's justification of its judgment while the latter refers to the final
court order regarding the rights and liabilities of the parties.[5]

Spelling
Judgment is considered a "free variation" word, and the use of either judgment or judgement (with an e) is
considered acceptable.[6] This variation arises depending on the country and the use of the word in a legal
or non-legal context. British, Australian, New Zealand, American, and Canadian English generally use
judgment when referring to a court's formal ruling.[7][8] Judgement is commonly used in the United
Kingdom when referring to a non-legal decision.[9] Translations from non-English texts demonstrate
varied spelling of the word. For instance, the English translation of France's Code of Civil Procedure uses
"judgement" throughout.[10]

Who renders a judgment

The legal definition of "judgment" contemplates decisions made by judges in a court of law.[3] Decisions
of quasi-judicial bodies and administrative bodies may also be colloquially referred to as "judgments,"
but they must be distinguished from true judgments in that they are not made by judges in courts of
law.[3] Judgments must also be distinguished from arbitral awards, which are made by arbitral tribunals.

Form of judgments
A judgment may be provided either in written or oral form depending on the circumstances.[11]

Oral judgments are often provided at the conclusion of a hearing and are frequently used by courts with
heavier caseloads[12] or where a judgment must be rendered quickly.[13]
Written reasons for judgment are often provided in circumstances where a complex decision must be
made, where the matter is likely to be appealed, or where the decision is considered to be of some
significant importance to members of the legal community and/or the public at large.[14] Written reasons
for judgment are not generally provided immediately following the hearing and may take days, weeks, or
even months to be released.[15]

Types of judgments
Types of judgments can be distinguished on a number of grounds, including the procedures the parties
must follow to obtain the judgment, the issues the court will consider before rendering the judgment, and
the effect of the judgment. Judgments that vary from a standard judgment on the merits of a case include
the following:

Consent judgment: also referred to as an "agreed judgment", a consent judgment is a

settlement agreed upon by the parties and authorized by a judge.[3] Consent judgments are
often used in the regulatory context, particularly in antitrust and environmental cases.[16]
Declaratory judgment: a judgment that determines the rights and liabilities of the parties
without enforcing a judgment or otherwise requiring the parties to do anything.[17] A
declaratory judgment may be useful where the parties have differing views about their rights
and duties or are wishing to clarify them without seeking any other remedy. It has been
suggested, at least in the United States, that a declaratory judgment is a "milder" form of an
injunction order because it clarifies the parties' rights without actually directing the parties to
do anything.[18] Though a declaratory judgment is not binding, it is expected that the parties
will act in accordance with what the court determines in its judgment.
Default judgment: a judgment rendered in favour of one party based on the other party's
failure to take action.[19] Default judgments are commonly used where the defendant fails to
appear before the court or submit a defence after being summoned.[19] A default judgment
grants the relief requested by the appearing party and does not require extensive factual or
legal analysis from the court.[19]
Interlocutory judgment: an intermediate or interim judgment providing a temporary decision
on an issue that requires timely action.[17] Interlocutory orders are not final and may either
not be subject to appeal or may follow a different appeal procedure than other kinds of
judgments.[20]
Reserved judgment or reserved decision: a judgment that is not given immediately after the
conclusion of the hearing or trial. A reserved judgment may be released days, weeks, or
even months after the hearing.[15] In the United States, a reserved judgment is sometimes
annotated in law reports by the Latin phrase "Cur. adv. vult." or "c.a.v." (Curia advisari vult,
"the court wishes to be advised").[21]
Summary judgment: an accelerated judgment that does not require a trial and in which the
court's interpretation of the pleadings forms the basis of the judgment.[22] For a summary
judgment, the court will consider "the contents of the pleadings, the motions, and additional
evidence adduced by the parties to determine whether there is a genuine issue of material
fact rather than one of law."[22]
Vacated judgment: a judgment of an appellate court whereby the judgment under review is
set aside and a new trial is ordered.[23] A vacated judgment is rendered where the original
judgment failed to make an order in accordance with the law and a new trial is ordered to
ensure a just outcome. The process of vacating a judgment is sometimes referred to as
vacatur.[24] The result of a vacated judgment is a trial de novo.
Opinions within judgments
If more than one judge is deciding a case, the judgment may be delivered unanimously or it may be
divided into a number of majority, concurring, plurality, and dissenting opinions. Only the opinion of the
majority judgment is considered to have precedent-setting weight. Some examples of opinions within
judgments include:

Majority opinion: the opinion of more than half of the judges deciding a case.[25] This opinion
becomes precedent for future cases as it represents the views of the majority of the court.
Concurring opinion: the opinion of a single judge or judges that agrees with the final
outcome of the majority opinion but disagrees in whole or in part with the reasoning.[26]
Plurality opinion: the opinions of different judges of the court when a majority judgment is
not obtained.[27][25] An example of a plurality opinion is a court of three judges each
rendering a different concurring decision, agreeing on a final outcome but disagreeing on
the reasons justifying that final outcome.
Dissenting opinion: the opinion of a single judge or judges that rejects the conclusions of the
majority decision in whole or in part, and explains the reasons for rejecting the majority
decision.[28]

Enforcement of judgments
When a court renders a judgment, it may state that the successful party has a right to recover money or
property. However, the court will not collect the money or property on behalf of the successful party
without further action. In common law legal systems, judgment enforcement is regulated by
administrative divisions such as a province, territory, or federated state, while in civil law legal systems
judgment enforcement is regulated through the national Code of Civil Procedure. Judgment enforcement,
on a conceptual level, is conducted in a similar way across different legal systems. Specific references to
the judgment enforcement rules of Germany, Canada (Saskatchewan), and the United States (California)
are made in this section.

The successful party may receive immediate payment from the unsuccessful party on the basis of the
judgment and not require further action. A successful party who does not receive immediate payment
must initiate a judgment enforcement process in order to collect the money or property that they are
entitled to under the judgment.[29][30][31] Once this process is initiated, the successful party may be
referred to as the judgment creditor while the unsuccessful party will be referred to as the judgment
debtor in North America.[29][32]

Judgment creditors can register their judgments through the property registry system in their
jurisdictions,[33] levy the property in question through a writ of execution,[34] or seek a court order for
enforcement[31] depending on the options available in their jurisdiction.

Judgment creditors may also need to investigate whether judgment debtors are capable of paying.[35]
Understanding whether a judgment debtor is capable of fulfilling the judgment order may affect the
enforcement mechanism used to recover the money or property. Some steps are available in different
jurisdictions to investigate or interview judgment creditors, and investigations may be conducted either
by the judgment creditor or by a sheriff or bailiff.[36][37]
Different enforcement mechanisms exist, including seizure and sale of the judgment debtor's property or
garnishment.[38] Some jurisdictions, like California, also allow for additional enforcement mechanisms
depending on the circumstances, such as suspending the judgment debtor's driver's license or professional
license.[39] In Germany, a bailiff is responsible for enforcing the judgment and is empowered to use a
number of different enforcement mechanisms.[37]

In Germany, the judgment creditor is entitled to enforce the judgment 30 years past the judgment date.[40]
In California and Saskatchewan, the judgment creditor is entitled to enforce the judgment 10 years past
the judgment date subject to exceptions that allow the judgment creditor to renew the enforcement for an
additional 10 years.[41] [29]

Release of judgments

Depending on the jurisdiction, the judgment debtor may be able to obtain a "satisfaction and release of
judgment" document from the judgment creditor. This document affirms that the judgment debtor has
fulfilled any obligations relating to the judgment.

For example, in California, a judgment creditor must file an "Acknowledgment of Satisfaction of

Judgment"[42] where it has been paid in full by the judgment debtor within 15 days of the judgment
debtor's request.[43] This document has the effect of formally closing the case[44] and terminating any
ongoing garnishment arrangements or liens.[45] In Saskatchewan, upon either the satisfaction or
withdrawal of a judgment, a judgment debtor can seek a discharge of judgment.[46] If successful, the
judgment is removed from the Judgment Registry and detached from any property registered on the
Personal Property registry, titles, or interests in land.[47]

Judgments by legal system

The requirements for judgments share many similarities and some differences between countries and
legal systems. For instance, while the civil law imposes a statutory requirement to provide reasons for
judgment, the common law recognizes a contextual duty to provide reasons depending on certain
circumstances. The following section provides some information regarding judgments in different
jurisdictions as well as examples of their treatment of other types of judgments, where available.

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.[48]
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:

1. Whether there is a good reason why the defendant failed to file a defence;
2. Whether there has been any delay by the defendant in bringing the application;
3. The defendant’s conduct in the action before and after judgment;
4. The defendant’s good faith;
5. Whether the defendant has raised a prima facie defence on the merits; and
6. Whether the plaintiff would be irreparably prejudiced if the judgment is set aside which
cannot be adequately compensated by a suitable award of costs.[49]

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."[50] 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.[51] In general, Canadian courts are expected to provide reasons for judgment as
a duty to the public at large,[52] to demonstrate that the judge or judges have engaged with the parties'
pleadings,[53] to explain why the parties won or lost,[54] and to allow for meaningful appellate review (in
the event that the case may be appealed).[55]

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.[56] 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.[57]

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.[58]
Default judgment: a default judgment can be sought by the plaintiff where a defendant “has
been noted in default” for certain claims.[59]
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.”[60]

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 (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'.[61]

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 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.[62]

Delays have occurred in a number of 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.[63][64][65]

The 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 Mr Justice Barma, JA after a
delay of 34 months.[66]

Similar delays have also been encountered in cases in the District Court. For example, in Leung Chi Wang
v Leung Yui Shing (decided by Deputy District Judge Richard Leung),[67] Kan Yay Shan v Mo You Mut
(decided by Deputy District Judge Simon Lui),[68] Golden Field Glass Works v Yeung Chun Keung
(decided by Deputy District Judge Timon Shum),[69] and Han Mei Fang v All Occupiers of Flat F, 6th
Floor, Kapok Mansion (decided by Deputy District Judge Samson Hung),[70] 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 (Deputy High Court Judge
Ian Carlson) took over 10 months to hand down his reserved judgment. The 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.[71]

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 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, 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'.[72]
In HKSAR v Tin's Label Factory Ltd, at the end of the hearing of the appeal in the 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'.[73]

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, Court of Appeal and High Court
respectively. As of 2017, the Supreme Court 'will endeavour to deliver judgment in an appeal within six
months from the last day of the hearing'.[74] In the Court of Appeal and the High Court, most decisions
are delivered within three months of the last day of the hearing.[75][76]

United Kingdom
The 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).[77] The Court also noted that providing reasons for judgment "is a function of due process,
and therefore of justice."[78] 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.[78] 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.[78] The court appears to
propose that the ultimate requirement is the court explaining, in some way, why it has made the decision
in question.[78]

The 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.[79]
Further, The Civil Procedure Rules 1998[80] state that a judgment or order takes effect on the day it is
rendered unless the court specifies otherwise[81] 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.[82]
Declaratory judgment: a declaratory judgment can be made by the courts regardless of
whether a remedy is being claimed.[83]
Default judgment: a default judgment is available where the defendant does not file
acknowledgment of service or fails to file a defence.[84] 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.[85]
Summary judgment: a summary judgment is made without requiring a trial.[86] 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.”[87]

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."[88]

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.[89]

Default judgment: If the defendant fails to plead or otherwise defend against the action, a
default judgment may be entered.[90] 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.[91] 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.[92]
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.[93]
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.[94]
Summary judgment: A party can seek a summary judgment on all or part of its claim.[95] The
court will grant a summary judgment if the party seeking the judgment demonstrates that
there is no real dispute regarding the facts.[95] The court must provide reasons for either
granting or denying a summary judgment.[95]
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[96] as well as rules relating to summary judgments,[97] default judgments,[98]
and interim or interlocutory judgments.[99]

The Full Faith and Credit Clause of the federal Constitution generally requires states to recognize the
records and judgments of other states.
 Civil law

France
A court's duties regarding judgments are outlined in the Code de
procédure civile. A judgment "is given on behalf of the French
people"[100] and must contain certain information, including the
date, the names of the judges, the level of court, and the names of
the parties involved.[100] A judgment must also describe the
parties' claims and the grounds on which their claims are based,
identifying both the final judgment and the reasons for the
judgment.[101] In light of compliance with the rules of the Code
and the absence of an appeal, a judgment is presumed to have
been executed correctly.[102]
Judicial judgment of debt, Greene
County, Pennsylvania, 1815
Traditional French judgments often consisted of a single sentence
wherein the court provided its judgment.[103] However, a drive
towards modernization of French judgments has encouraged judges to write much clearer judgments to
encourage simplification and accessibility.[103] Modern French judgments generally include "[a]
recounting [of] the facts, the procedure and the claims of the parties, as a narrative ... Such judgments
may also be divided to deal with each element of the claim separately."[104] Generally, French judgments
are much shorter than their common law counterparts.[103]

A court may either provide their judgment at the end of the hearing or defer the judgment to a specified
date.[105] If an oral judgment is rendered, it must be read by at least one of the judges who heard the
case.[106] Parties to the proceedings are entitled to receive "a certified copy of the judgement imprinted
with an order of enforcement."[107] Once a judgment has been executed, it becomes res judicata.[108] A
judgment will be enforced once it becomes final subject to some exceptions.[109] A judgment can only be
enforced once a certified copy imprinted with an order of enforcement is provided and the affected parties
have been notified.[110]

Default judgment: If one of the parties does not appear before the court, or one of the
parties does not present their pleadings within the enumerated time limit, the appearing
party is entitled to receive a default judgment on the merits of the case.[111]
Ex parte judgment: an ex parte judgment may be granted "where the petitioner has good
reason for not summoning the opposing party."[112]
Interlocutory Judgment: An interlocutory judgment, insofar as it gives rise to an investigation
or an interim measure, stays the proceedings and does not equate to a final judgment.[113]
Summary judgment: a summary judgment may be granted at the request of one party in
order to provide an order quickly as an alternative to a full trial.[114]

Germany
A court's duties regarding judgments are outlined in the Zivilprozessordnung.[115] A trial judgment must
contain certain information, including the parties and their representatives, the court and judges involved
in the decision, the date the proceedings finished, the merits of the case and the reasons for the
judgment.[116] Specifically, the legislation requires that "the claims asserted and the means of challenge
or defence [be] brought before the court, highlighting the petitions filed. The details of the circumstances
and facts as well as the status of the dispute thus far are to be included by reference being made to the
written pleadings, the records of the hearings, and other documents ... [and] a brief summary of the
considerations of the facts and circumstances of the case and the legal aspects on which the decision is
based."[116]

An appellate court judgment must include the findings of fact in the contested judgment, including any
changes or amendments, and the reasons for the court's determination of the appeal.[117]

Default judgment: a default judgment is rendered based on the defendant's

acknowledgment of their actions. A default judgment does not need to address the facts or
merits of the case and does not require the provision of reasons.[118]
Interlocutory judgment: an interlocutory judgment is rendered when the court has enough
information to make a decision.[119] An interlocutory judgment is considered to be a final
judgment and not subject to appeal unless the court deems further consideration
necessary.[120]
Judgments in most German courts are rendered "in the name of the people".[121]

Italy
The duty to provide reasons for a judgment is entrenched in Italy's Constitution.[122]

Japan
A court's duties regarding judgments are outlined in "民事訴訟法及び民事保全法の" (Code of Civil
Procedure).[123] The Code states that a final judgment must be made "when the suit is ripe for making a
judicial decision."[124] The judgment must contain the names of the parties, the court, the final date of
oral argument, the facts, and the reasons for decision[125] subject to some exceptions.[126] A judgment
must be rendered within two months of the conclusion of oral arguments unless exceptional
circumstances apply[127] and becomes effective once it has been rendered.[128]

Religious law

Saudi Arabia
A court's duties regarding judgments are outlined in The Law of the Judiciary.[129] Judgments must be
pronounced in a public hearing[130] and must "include the grounds on which they were based and the
legal authority thereof."[131] A judgment may be rendered unanimously or by a majority vote. If the
judgment contains a dissent, the majority decision in the judgment must address the dissenting opinion,
and any dissenting judges must explain why they are dissenting.[132]

Once a judgment has been issued, the judge or judges determine whether the parties involved agree with
the ruling. If one party disagrees with the judgment, that party has a set number of days to request a
written appeal. An appellate body will then review the judgment in the absence of the parties.[133] If the
appellate body agrees with the lower court's decision, it will stamp "final and enforceable" on the
judgment without providing any reasons and will return the judgment to the trial court.[133] If the
appellate body disagrees with the lower court's decision, it may either send the case back to the trial court
for reconsideration or, less commonly, may call the parties to present further arguments and write its own
judgment based on the information presented.[133]
See also
Defendant
Judicial interpretation
Procedural history
Plaintiff
Question of law
Standing (law)
Trier of fact

References
1. Garner, Bryan A. (2011). Garner's Dictionary of Legal Usage ([Link]
s?id=O1m1bI5vCooC&pg=PA495) (3rd ed.). Oxford: Oxford University Press. p. 495.
ISBN 9780195384208. Retrieved September 10, 2023.
2. Black’s Law Dictionary 970 (10th ed. 2014).
3. Black’s Law Dictionary 970 (10th ed. 2014).
4. Garner, Bryan A. (2011). Garner's Dictionary of Legal Usage ([Link]
s?id=O1m1bI5vCooC&pg=PA497) (3rd ed.). Oxford: Oxford University Press. p. 497.
ISBN 9780195384208. Retrieved September 10, 2023.
5. The Courts of British Columbia: Supreme Court, About Judgments ([Link]
[Link]/supreme_court/about_judgments.aspx) (Last accessed March 28, 2015)
6. Sylvia Chalker & Edmund Weiner, Oxford Dictionary of English Grammar (Oxford U.P.
1994), 160.
7. New Zealand Oxford Dictionary, "Judgment" ([Link]
acref/9780195584516.001.0001/acref-9780195584516). Accessed March 28, 2015.
8. Australian Oxford Dictionary, "Judgment" ([Link]
ef/9780195517965.001.0001/acref-9780195517965?hide=true&page=2893&pageSize=10&
sort=titlesort&source=%2F10.1093%2Facref%2F9780195517965.001.0001%2Facref-97801
95517965). Accessed March 28, 2015.
9. New Oxford American English Dictionary, "Judgment" ([Link]
1071616/[Link] see
specifically, "Usage". Accessed March 28, 2015.
10. Code de procédure civile [N.C.P.C.] (French), at [Link] ([Link]
[Link]/Traductions/en-English/Legifrance-translations) (select "Code of civil procedure" for
English translation).
11. Roman N Komar, Reasons for Judgment: A Handbook for Judges and Other Judicial
Officers 8 (Butterworth & Co. Ltd. 1980).
12. Roman N Komar, Reasons for Judgment: A Handbook for Judges and Other Judicial
Officers 14 (Butterworth & Co. Ltd. 1980).
13. Roman N Komar, Reasons for Judgment: A Handbook for Judges and Other Judicial
Officers 15 (Butterworth & Co. Ltd. 1980).
14. Roman N Komar, Reasons for Judgment: A Handbook for Judges and Other Judicial
Officers 9–10 (Butterworth & Co. Ltd. 1980).
15. "Supreme Court - About Judgments" ([Link]
[Link]). [Link]. Retrieved 2024-04-25.
16. Robert B. Bell, Regulation by Consent Decree, 27 Antitrust 73 at 73 (2011–2012).
17. Black’s Law Dictionary 971 (10th ed. 2014).
18. Samuel L Bray, The Myth of the Mild Declaratory Judgment, 63 Duke L.J. 1091 at 1093
(2014).
19. Black’s Law Dictionary 507 (10th ed. 2014).
20. Capital Gains Income Streams Corporation v. Merrill Lynch Canada Inc., [2007] OJ No 2606
at para 32 (Can.).
21. Black’s Law Dictionary 465 (10th ed. 2014).
22. Black’s Law Dictionary 1664 (10th ed. 2014).
23. Black’s Law Dictionary 1782 (10th ed. 2014).
24. "vacatur" ([Link] LII / Legal Information Institute.
Retrieved 2023-12-12.
25. Black’s Law Dictionary 1266 (10th ed. 2014).
26. Black’s Law Dictionary 352 (10th ed. 2014).
27. James F. Spriggs II & David R. Stras, Explaining Plurality Decisions, 99 The Georgetown
L.J. 515 at 517 (2011).
28. Black’s Law Dictionary 1265 (10th ed. 2014).
29. "Enforcing orders" ([Link]
[Link]/home/court-of-queen-s-bench/enforcement-of-orders). Archived from the original
([Link]
s) on 2021-07-12. Retrieved 2024-05-10.
30. "Collecting the Judgment | Superior Court of California | County of Orange" ([Link]
[Link]/self-help/self-help-small-claims/collecting-judgment). [Link]. Retrieved
2024-04-19.
31. "European e-Justice Portal - European Judicial Network in civil and commercial matters" (htt
ps://[Link]/content_european_judicial_network_in_civil_and_commercial_matt
[Link]). [Link]. Retrieved 2024-04-19.
32. "Collecting the Judgment | Superior Court of California | County of Orange" ([Link]
[Link]/self-help/self-help-small-claims/collecting-judgment). [Link]. Retrieved
2024-04-19.
33. "Step 3 – Register Your Judgment with the Land Titles Registry" ([Link]
b/20210712004221/[Link]
ement-of-orders). Archived from the original ([Link]
ourt-of-queen-s-bench/enforcement-of-orders) on 2021-07-12. Retrieved 2024-05-10.
34. "Collecting the Judgment | Superior Court of California | County of Orange" ([Link]
[Link]/self-help/self-help-small-claims/collecting-judgment). [Link]. Retrieved
2024-04-25.
35. Courts of Saskatchewan, Enforcing Orders (Last accessed March 28, 2015),
[Link]
Archived ([Link]
ome/court-of-queen-s-bench/enforcement-of-orders) 2015-03-17 at the Wayback Machine
(See specifically "Step 5 (Optional) – Question the Judgment Debtor").
36. Courts of Saskatchewan, Enforcing Orders (Last accessed March 28, 2015),
[Link]
Archived ([Link]
ome/court-of-queen-s-bench/enforcement-of-orders) 2015-03-17 at the Wayback Machine
(See specifically "Step 4 (Optional) – Give The Sheriff an Enforcement Instruction").
37. "European e-Justice Portal - European Judicial Network in civil and commercial matters" (htt
ps://[Link]/content_european_judicial_network_in_civil_and_commercial_matt
[Link]). [Link]. Retrieved 2024-04-25.
38. Courts of Saskatchewan, Enforcing Orders (Last accessed March 28, 2015),
[Link]
Archived ([Link]
ome/court-of-queen-s-bench/enforcement-of-orders) 2015-03-17 at the Wayback Machine
(See specifically "Step 7 – Distribution of Monies Collected by Sheriff").
39. "Collecting the Judgment | Superior Court of California | County of Orange" ([Link]
[Link]/self-help/self-help-small-claims/collecting-judgment). [Link]. Retrieved
2024-04-25.
40. "European e-Justice Portal - European Judicial Network in civil and commercial matters" (htt
ps://[Link]/content_european_judicial_network_in_civil_and_commercial_matt
[Link]). [Link]. Retrieved 2024-04-25.
41. "Collecting the Judgment | Superior Court of California | County of Orange" ([Link]
[Link]/self-help/self-help-small-claims/collecting-judgment). [Link]. Retrieved
2024-04-25.
42. The Judicial Branch of California, SC-290 Acknowledgment of Satisfaction of Judgment
(Last accessed March 28, 2015), [Link]
43. California Code of Civil Procedure, C.C.P. § 724.005.
44. California Code of Civil Procedure, C.C.P. § 724.003.
45. California Code of Civil Procedure, C.C.P. § 706.027.
46. The Enforcement of Money Judgments Regulations, R.R.S. ch. E-9 22, Reg 1, s 11(1)
(Can.).
47. The Enforcement of Money Judgments Regulations, R.R.S. ch. E-9 22, Reg 1, s 11(2)
(Can.).
48. Davis, Wayne (2016-07-27). "Setting Aside Default Judgment in Queensland" ([Link]
[Link]/setting-aside-default-judgment/). Stonegate Legal. Retrieved 2019-11-11.
49. Unique Product Marketing Pty Ltd v. Bortek Sales Pty Ltd ([Link]
viewdoc/au/cases/qld/QDC/2000/[Link]), 2000-11-01, retrieved 2019-11-11
50. R. v. Sheppard, 2002 S.C.C. 26 at para. 5, [2002] 1 S.C.R. 869.
51. R. v. Sheppard, 2002 S.C.C. 26 at para. 19, [2002] 1 S.C.R. 869.
52. R. v. Sheppard, 2002 S.C.C. 26 at para. 22, [2002] 1 S.C.R. 869.
53. R. v. Sheppard, 2002 S.C.C. 26 at para. 23, [2002] 1 S.C.R. 869.
54. R. v. Sheppard, 2002 S.C.C. 26 at para. 24, [2002] 1 S.C.R. 869.
55. R. v. Sheppard, 2002 S.C.C. 26 at para. 25, [2002] 1 S.C.R. 869.
56. R. v. R.E.M., 2008 S.C.C. 51 at para. 16, [2008] 3 S.C.R. 3.
57. R. v. R.E.M., 2008 S.C.C. 51 at para. 17, [2008] 3 S.C.R. 3.
58. Queen’s Bench Act, R.S.S. 1998, ch. Q-1.01, § 11(b)(iii) (Can.).
59. Courts of Justice Act, R.R.O. 1990, Reg. 194, § 19.04 (Can.).
60. Courts of Justice Act, R.R.O. 1990, Reg. 194, § 20.04(2)(b) (Can.).
61. Mak Kang Hoi v Ho Yuk Wah David, FACV 20/2006 ([Link]
mon/ju/ju_body.jsp?AH=&QS=&FN=&currpage=T&DIS=56559#), reported at (2007) 10
HKCFAR 552
62. Dr Yip Chi Him Roger v Lee Kwok Leung, CACV 174/2015 ([Link]
s/common/ju/ju_body.jsp?AH=&QS=&FN=&currpage=T&DIS=106772#)
63. Data Key Ltd v Director of Lands, HCAL 164/2014 ([Link]
on/ju/ju_body.jsp?AH=&QS=&FN=&currpage=T&DIS=113908#), reported at [2018] 2
HKLRD 158
64. Lui Yuet Tin v Commissioner for Transport, HCAL 42/2014 ([Link]
s/common/ju/ju_body.jsp?AH=&QS=&FN=&currpage=T&DIS=114910#)
65. DI v Director of Immigration, HCAL 135/2014 ([Link]
u_body.jsp?AH=&QS=&FN=&currpage=T&DIS=112810#)
66. China Medical Technologies v Samson Tsang Tak Yung, CACV 197/2014 ([Link]
[Link]/lrs/common/ju/ju_body.jsp?AH=&QS=&FN=&currpage=T&DIS=113864#)
67. Leung Chi Wang v Leung Yui Shing, DCCJ 3435/2012 ([Link]
mmon/ju/ju_body.jsp?AH=&QS=&FN=&currpage=T&DIS=109138#)
68. Kan Yay Shan v Mo You Mut, DCMP 1886/2011 ([Link]
ju/ju_body.jsp?AH=&QS=&FN=&currpage=T&DIS=108933#)
69. Golden Field Glass Works v Yeung Chun Keung, DCCJ 1942/2012 ([Link]
[Link]/lrs/common/ju/ju_body.jsp?AH=&QS=&FN=&currpage=T&DIS=108933#)
70. Han Mei Fang v All Occupiers of Flat F, 6th Floor, Kapok Mansion, DCMP 3071/2012 (http
s://[Link]/lrs/common/ju/ju_body.jsp?AH=&QS=&FN=&currpage=T&DIS=1
12486#)
71. Welltus Limited v Fornton Knitting Company Limited, CACV 268/2011 ([Link]
[Link]/lrs/common/ju/ju_body.jsp?AH=&QS=&FN=&currpage=T&DIS=86174#), reported
at [2013] 5 HKC 106
72. HKSAR v Yip Kim Po, FAMC 12/2013 ([Link]
[Link]?AH=&QS=&FN=&currpage=T&DIS=92138#), reported at (2014) 17 HKCFAR 202
73. HKSAR v Tin's Label Factory Ltd, FACC 5/2008 ([Link]
ju/ju_body.jsp?AH=&QS=&FN=&currpage=T&DIS=63525#), reported at (2008) 11 HKCFAR
637
74. "Judgment delivery expectations — Courts of New Zealand" ([Link]
z/the-courts/supreme-court/judgment-delivery-expectations). [Link].
75. "Judgment delivery expectations — Courts of New Zealand" ([Link]
z/the-courts/court-of-appeal/court-of-appeal-judgment-delivery-expectations-inquiry-process
-and-recent-judgment-timeliness). [Link].
76. "Judgment delivery expectations — Courts of New Zealand" ([Link]
z/the-courts/high-court/high-court-judgment-delivery-expectations-inquiry-process-and-recen
t-judgment-timeliness). [Link].
77. Flannery v Halifax Estate Agencies Ltd, [1999] E.W.C.A. Civ. 811 at para 12, [2000] 1
W.L.R. 377 (U.K.).
78. Flannery v Halifax Estate Agencies Ltd, [1999] E.W.C.A. Civ. 811 at para 14, [2000] 1
W.L.R. 377 (U.K.).
79. Coventry & Ors v Lawrence & Anor [2014] UKSC 13 ([Link]
2014/[Link]#para17) at para. 17, [2014] 1 AC 822 (26 February 2014), Supreme Court of
the United Kingdom (England and Wales)
80. "Rules & Practice Directions - Civil Procedure Rules" ([Link]
edure-rules/civil/rules). [Link]. Retrieved 2024-04-25.
81. "Rules & Practice Directions - Civil Procedure Rules" ([Link]
edure-rules/civil/rules). [Link]. Retrieved 2024-04-25.
82. "Rules & Practice Directions - Civil Procedure Rules" ([Link]
edure-rules/civil/rules). [Link]. Retrieved 2024-04-25.
83. "Rules & Practice Directions - Civil Procedure Rules" ([Link]
edure-rules/civil/rules). [Link]. Retrieved 2024-04-25.
84. "Rules & Practice Directions - Civil Procedure Rules" ([Link]
edure-rules/civil/rules). [Link]. Retrieved 2024-04-25.
85. "Rules & Practice Directions - Civil Procedure Rules" ([Link]
edure-rules/civil/rules). [Link]. Retrieved 2024-04-25.
86. "Rules & Practice Directions - Civil Procedure Rules" ([Link]
edure-rules/civil/rules). [Link]. Retrieved 2024-04-25.
 87. "Rules & Practice Directions - Civil Procedure Rules" ([Link]
edure-rules/civil/rules). [Link]. Retrieved 2024-04-25.
88. Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(a); see also Fed. R. Bankr. P. 9002(5).
89. Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b).
90. Fed. R. Civ. P. 55(a).
91. Fed. R. Civ. P. 55(b)(1).
92. Fed. R. Civ. P. 55(b)(2).
93. Fed. R. Civ. P. 55(c).
94. Fed. R. Civ. P. 52(a)(2).
95. Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a).
96. California Code of Civil Procedure, C.C.P. § 577-579.
97. California Code of Civil Procedure, C.C.P. § 437.c-438.
98. California Code of Civil Procedure, C.C.P. § 1297.253.
99. California Code of Civil Procedure, C.C.P. § 1297.91–1297.95.
100. Code de procédure civile [N.C.P.C.] (Fr.), art. 454, Legifrance Translations (Last accessed
March 28, 2015), [Link]
translations (Select "Code of civil procedure-pdf" for English translation).
101. Code de procédure civile [N.C.P.C.] (Fr.), art. 455, Legifrance Translations (Last accessed
March 28, 2015), [Link]
translations (Select "Code of civil procedure-pdf" for English translation).
102. Code de procédure civile [N.C.P.C.] (Fr.), art. 461, Legifrance Translations (Last accessed
March 28, 2015), [Link]
translations (Select "Code of civil procedure-pdf" for English translation).
103. Catherine Elliott, Eric Jeanpierre and Catherine Vernon, French Legal System 158 (2d. ed.,
Pearson, 2006).
104. Catherine Elliott, Eric Jeanpierre and Catherine Vernon, French Legal System 162 (2d. ed.,
Pearson, 2006).
105. Code de procédure civile [N.C.P.C.] (Fr.), art. 450, translated at
[Link] (Select "Code
of civil procedure-pdf" for English translation).
106. Code de procédure civile [N.C.P.C.] (Fr.), art. 452, translated at
[Link] (Select "Code
of civil procedure-pdf" for English translation).
107. Code de procédure civile [N.C.P.C.] (Fr.), art. 465, translated at
[Link] (Select "Code
of civil procedure-pdf" for English translation).
108. Code de procédure civile [N.C.P.C.] (Fr.), art. 500, translated at
[Link] (Select "Code
of civil procedure-pdf" for English translation).
109. Code de procédure civile [N.C.P.C.] (Fr.), art. 501, translated at
[Link] (Select "Code
of civil procedure-pdf" for English translation).
110. Code de procédure civile [N.C.P.C.] (Fr.), art. 503, translated at
[Link] (Select "Code
of civil procedure-pdf" for English translation).
111. Code de procédure civile [N.C.P.C.] (Fr.), art. 468-69; 471, translated at
[Link] (Select "Code
of civil procedure-pdf" for English translation).
112. Code de procédure civile [N.C.P.C.] (Fr.), art. 493, translated at
[Link] (Select "Code
of civil procedure-pdf" for English translation).
113. Code de procédure civile [N.C.P.C.] (Fr.), art. 483, translated at
[Link] (Select "Code
of civil procedure-pdf" for English translation).
114. Code de procédure civile [N.C.P.C.] (Fr.), art. 484, translated at
[Link] (Select "Code
of civil procedure-pdf" for English translation).
115. Zivilprozeẞordnung [ZPO] [Code of Civil Procedure] (Ger.), translated at
[Link]
116. Zivilprozeẞordnung [ZPO] [Code of Civil Procedure], § 313 (Ger.), translated at
[Link]
117. Zivilprozeẞordnung [ZPO] [Code of Civil Procedure], § 540 (Ger.), translated at
[Link]
118. Zivilprozeẞordnung [ZPO] [Code of Civil Procedure], § 313(b) (Ger.), translated at
[Link]
119. Zivilprozeẞordnung [ZPO] [Code of Civil Procedure], § 303 (Ger.), translated at
[Link]
120. Zivilprozeẞordnung [ZPO] [Code of Civil Procedure], § 280(2) and 304 (Ger.), translated at
[Link]
121. $311 Zivilprozessordnung [ZPO] (Ger.) [Link]
122. Cost., art. 111, para. 6 (Italy),
[Link]
123. Minji Soshōhō [Code of Civil Procedure] (Japan), translated at
[Link]
124. Minji Soshōhō [Code of Civil Procedure], art. 243(1) (Japan), translated at
[Link] (WIPO Lex).
125. Minji Soshōhō [Code of Civil Procedure], art. 253(1) (Japan), translated at
[Link]
126. Minji Soshōhō [Code of Civil Procedure], art. 254(1) (Japan), translated at
[Link] (WIPO Lex).
127. Minji Soshōhō [Code of Civil Procedure], art. 251(1) (Japan), translated at
[Link] (WIPO Lex).
128. Minji Soshōhō [Code of Civil Procedure], art. 250 (Japan), translated at
[Link] (WIPO Lex).
129. The Law of the Judiciary, Royal Decree No.M/64, 14 Rajab 1395 [23 July 1975], translated
at [Link]
Archived ([Link]
t/country-information/laws/Law_of_the_Judiciary.aspx) 2015-04-02 at the Wayback
Machine.
130. The Law of the Judiciary, Royal Decree No.M/64, 14 Rajab 1395, art. 33 [23 July 1975],
translated at [Link]
information/laws/Law_of_the_Judiciary.aspx Archived ([Link]
2143743/[Link]
[Link]) 2015-04-02 at the Wayback Machine.
131. The Law of the Judiciary, Royal Decree No.M/64, 14 Rajab 1395, art. 35 [23 July 1975],
translated at [Link]
information/laws/Law_of_the_Judiciary.aspx Archived ([Link]
2143743/[Link]
[Link]) 2015-04-02 at the Wayback Machine.
132. The Law of the Judiciary, Royal Decree No.M/64, 14 Rajab 1395, art. 34 [23 July 1975],
translated at [Link]
information/laws/Law_of_the_Judiciary.aspx Archived ([Link]
2143743/[Link]
[Link]) 2015-04-02 at the Wayback Machine.
133. Hatem Abbas Ghazzawi & Co, Saudi Arabia – Law & Practice (Last accessed March 28,
2015), [Link]
200 Archived ([Link]
[Link]/guide/practice-guides/location/241/6622/1434-200) 2015-03-26 at the Wayback
Machine.

Retrieved from "[Link]