1961:
In MacFoy v United Africa Co Ltd. [1961] Lord Denning confirmed that:
(i)
a void order is automatically void without more ado;
(ii)
a void order does not have to be set aside by a Court to render it void although for
convenience it may sometimes be necessary to have the Court set the void order
aside;
(iii)
a void order is incurably void and all proceedings based on the void order/invalid
claim are also void.
1963:
In Re Pritchard (deceased) [1963] Upjohn LJ confirmed that:
(i)
a fundamental defect in proceedings will make the whole proceedings a nullity;
(ii)
a nullity cannot be waived;
(iii)
it is never too late to raise the issue of nullity; and
(iv)
a person affected by a void order has the right – ex debito justitiae – to have it set
aside.
1978:
In Firman v Ellis [1978] Lord Denning confirmed that:
(i)
a void act is void ab initio
1979:
Lord Denning, in his book ‘The Discipline of Law’ – Butterworths 1979 – page 77, states:
(i)
although a void order has no legal effect from the outset it may sometimes be
necessary to have it set aside because as Lord Radcliffe once said: “It bears no
brand of invalidity on its forehead”.
1985:
Wandsworth London Borough Council v. Winder [1985] A.C. 461:
(i)
a person may ignore a void claim and rely on it as a defence when necessary.
2003:
In Bellinger v Bellinger [2003] the House of Lords confirmed that:
(i)
a void act is void from the outset; and
(ii)
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 laws 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 it.