At the root of every financial remedy case there’s a desire to reach finality. This goal would be threatened if judges regularly changed their minds about the decisions they make. And yet when a financial order is made there is a discretionary power available under which judges can change the nature of a ruling they have made before that order has been formally sealed by the court.
Until an order is perfected in this way it is in theory possible for it to be altered. As we’ll see below these so-called Barrell applications are discouraged because of their potential to undermine the all-important finality principle we have mentioned. And even when they are made, case law shows they these applications rarely succeed. We look at one such case below.
What are Barrell applications?
Barrell applications can be used in all types of litigation. They enable judges to change their mind and alter their original position before the order has been sealed by the court.
The rationale behind such applications is this: There is a justifiable concern for finality in court decisions. But this should be weighed against the need to ensure courts aren’t artificially restrained by their own decisions. Remember, a Barrell application is only available during the short window between the parties being informed of a ruling and it being formally enshrined in a court order.
The original case of Re Barrell Enterprises dates from 1973. Following that ruling it was understood that the power to alter a judgment was available only in exceptional circumstances. This approach changed with the 2013 case of Re L&B (Children). There a judge who had initially ruled that the father had caused injuries to his child changed her mind before the order was sealed. She decided instead that either the mother or father could have been responsible for the child’s unexplained injuries. Rather than exceptionality being the benchmark for a successful Barrell application, this case decided that in fact the overriding objective should be fairness. And where children are involved, their welfare will be paramount.
While Re L&B arguably widened the scope of Barrell applications, subsequent cases make clear that in practice these applications are generally discouraged and will only on very rare occasions succeed.
X v Y – Failure to Have Financial Order Changed to Include Recent £1million inheritance
In X v Y (2025) the wife made a Barrell application seeking to change a final order made in contested financial remedy proceedings. That order had provided the husband with a greater share of assets because of his lower earning capacity and reduced mortgage borrowing power. Before the order was formally sealed however the husband’s father died. The wife believed that an expected £1million inheritance now due to the husband should be taken into account to reduce the husband’s share in the matrimonial assets.
In the event the wife’s application failed. The court found that the question of the husband receiving financial support from his family on the (imminent) death of his father had already been considered in the original order. When the terms of the father’s will were examined it was clear that the husband would not benefit financially for at least another year. And, while he would derive some financial inheritance the extent of this and the way it would be received was far from clear. That was because the inheritance was subject to a trust and therefore would be distributed at the discretion of trustees.
The inappropriateness of allowing the Barrell application was also clear from a practical perspective. If the application were to succeed additional costs and delay would be incurred. The use of scarce court resources would also need to be employed – all for an uncertain benefit. It could also open the door to further questions such as the wife’s potential future inheritance, and this would be disproportionate.
Comment
In certain cases Barrell applications may well be justified. These instances are however likely to be few and far between. Judicial distaste for endorsing changes in judgments is apparent from even a cursory reading of judgments in this area. Criticism includes the potential for applications to be exploited by disappointed litigants seeking spuriously to try to get the judge to change their mind immediately after judgment has been delivered. In one notable judgment the judge explains that trials are not dress rehearsals. Financial remedy cases are disproportionately expensive and extraordinarily stressful for the parties. To allow litigants to treat the trial as some kind of practice run by opening the door to subsequent Barrell applications would in that judge’s opinion ‘send a terrible message to prospective litigants’.
In closing we should highlight that Barrell applications are not the same as challenges to an order you are unhappy with that are made by way of appeal and they shouldn’t be confused with a situation where a party raises perceived errors in draft orders. Nor are they relevant in cases where a party seeks to have a financial order reopened when new facts emerge, such as the discovery that a spouse was hiding assets when the original decision was made.