Chronology of some case laws relating to void orders:
1888:
In Anlaby v. Praetorius (1888) Fry L.J. stated on the issue of void proceedings that:
(i)
a plaintiff has no right to obtain any judgement at all.
1889:
In Fry v. Moore (1889) Lindley, L.J. said that:
(i)
it might be difficult to draw the exact line between nullity and irregularity. If an
order is irregular it can be waived by the defendant but if it is null then it renders all
that is done afterwards void. In general one can easily see on which side of the line
the particular case falls.
1921:
Crane v Director of Public Prosecutions [1921]:
(i)
if an order is void ab initio (from the beginning) then there is no real order of the
Court.
1943:
In Craig v Kanssen [1943] Lord Greene confirmed that:
(i)
an order which can properly be described as a nullity is something which the
person affected by it is entitled ex debito justitiae to have set aside;
(ii)
so far as procedure is concerned the Court in its ‘inherent jurisdiction’ can set aside
its own order and an appeal from the order is not necessary; and
(iii)
if permission to appeal is requested and if out of time the Court should grant
permission because time does not run because the point is that the order is invalid
and the person affected by it has the right to have it set aside.
1953:
In Wiseman v Wiseman [1953] 1 All ER 601 – Lord Denning confirmed that:
(i)
The issue of natural justice does not arise in a void order because it is void whether
it causes a failure of natural justice or not;
(ii)
a claimant or defendant should not be allowed to abuse the process of Court by
failing to comply with a statutory procedure and yet keep the benefit of it and for
that reason also a void act is void even if it affects the rights of an innocent third
party.