A void order is incurably void and all proceedings based on the invalid claim or void act are
also void. Even a decision of the higher Courts (High Court, Court of Appeal and Supreme
Court) will be void if the decision is founded on an invalid claim or void act, because
something cannot be founded on nothing (Lord Denning in MacFoy v United Africa Co. Ltd.
[1961]).
A void order is void even if it results in a failure of natural justice or injustice to an innocent
third party (Lord Denning in Wiseman v Wiseman [1953] 1 All ER 601).
It is never too late to raise the issue of nullity and a person can ignore the void order or
claim and raise it as a defence when necessary (Wandsworth London Borough Council v.
Winder [1985] A.C. 461; Smurthwaite v Hannay [1894] A.C. 494; Upjohn LJ in Re Pritchard
(deceased) [1963]; Lord Denning in MacFoy v United Africa Co. Ltd. [1961]).
In R v. Clarke and McDaid [2008] UKHL8 the House of Lords confirmed that there is no
valid trial if the bill/Indictment has not been signed by an appropriate officer of the Court
because Parliament intended that the Indictment be signed by a proper officer of the
Court.
In Bellinger v Bellinger [2003] UKHL 21 the House of Lords confirmed that a void act is void
from the outset and no Court – not even the House of Lords (now the Supreme Court) –
has jurisdiction to give legal effect to a void act no matter how unreasonable that may
seem, because doing so would mean reforming the law which no Court has power to do
because such power rests only with Parliament. The duty of the Court is to interpret and
apply the law not reform or create it.
It is important to note that if a claim is invalid the plaintiff can start all over again unless he
is prevented from doing so due to limitation as in the case of Re Pritchard (deceased)
[1963] or estoppel – for example; where the Claimant applied to the Court for permission
to correct/amend the claim and permission was refused; or the plaintiff or his solicitor had
been negligent in ignoring a material fact when filing the invalid claim so that the plaintiff
is estopped by the principle that he should not be allowed a ‘second bite at the cherry’;
and in the case of a criminal trial if there has been a fundamental technical defect the
Court can order a new trial (venire de novo – may you cause to come anew).