Order 58 Supreme Court Rules

Two amendments have been made to Article 58 to clarify this practice. The replacement of the broader phrase “all appeals shall be dismissed” with the words “there is no recovery” makes it clear that the registrar must immediately register the judgement in the cases indicated, without waiting for a formal judgement approved by the court to be filed. The phrase “any remedy is denied” includes cases such as denial of debt relief from a bankrupt debtor and similar situations where the requested appeal is dismissed but there is literally no refusal to “recover”. (1) Without instructions from the court. Subject to section 54(b), and unless otherwise ordered by the court, the registrar shall establish, sign and register the judgment without delay without waiting for instructions from the court if: (B) the court grants other remedies not described in this paragraph (b). Section 58(a) of the Regulations preserves the essence of this requirement of separate documents, both for the original judgment and for each amended judgment. No attempt is made to dispel the confusion that some courts have found in the treatment of elements of a separate document. It is easy to prepare a separate document that reflects the terms of the judgment without offering additional explanations or quotations from case law. Forms 31 and 32 provide examples.

Article 58 (b) rejects the attempt to define when a judgement becomes “effective”. Combined with the definition of a decision under Rule 54a as “any decision subject to appeal”, the earlier definition of effectiveness under Rule 58 could cause strange difficulties in the enforcement of pre-trial injunctions that can be challenged under interim provisions or expansive theories of finality. Paragraph 58(b) of the Regulations replaces the definition of effectiveness with a new provision defining the date of judgment. If the judgment is rendered without delay in a separate act, as required by Rule 58(a)(1), the new provision does not affect the effect of Rule 58. In cases where the court and the registrar do not comply with this simple requirement, the time limits for filing an application set out in articles 50, 52, 54, 59 and 60 shall begin to run 150 days from the date of receipt of the judgment in the civil action, as required by article 79 (a). However, rule 58 is amended to address an issue arising from rule 4(a) of the appeal. Some courts treat these orders as those that reject an application for a new trial as a “judgment,” so the appeal period does not begin to run until the decision is recorded in a separate document. Without addressing the question whether such decisions, and thus judgments within the meaning of Article 54(a), are subject to appeal, the amendment provides that registration in a separate document is not required for the determination of the applications listed in Rule 4(a) of the appeal. The list of requests listed in Article 4(a) is generalized by omitting details that are important for the purposes of the time limit for appeal but would unnecessarily complicate the need for a separate document. For example, it is not necessary for the listed movements to be carried out in a timely manner. Many of the applications listed are often made before judgment is rendered.

The exemption from the decision on the application does not relieve the obligation to reproduce the decision itself in a separate document. And if the order of the application results in a modified judgment, the amended judgment must be recorded in a separate document. (B) the court awards only costs or a certain amount; or (c) the time of entry. For the purposes of this Regulation, the judgment shall be recorded at the following times: Normally, waiting for or filing a request for attorneys` fees after the judgment does not affect the time limit for appealing against the underlying judgment. See Budinich v. Becton Dickinson & Co., 486 U.S. 196 (1988). In particular, if the fee claim raises essential issues or is likely to be affected by the appeal decision, the District Court may prefer to postpone consideration of the fee claim until after the decision on the appeal. In many cases, however, it may be more efficient to decide fee issues before an appeal is filed, so that appeals relating to the tax notice can be heard at the same time as appeals on the merits. This review allows the court, but does not require, that the judgment be rendered res judicata for the purposes of the appeal under the revised Fed.

R. App. p. 4 (a) until the fee dispute has been resolved. To achieve this result, the registration of a decision of the District Court is required before a notice of appeal takes effect for the purposes of the appeal. If the decision is registered, the application for attorneys` fees is treated as a timely application under Rule 59. The wording of Article 58 has been amended as part of the general reorganisation of the Civil Code in order to facilitate its understanding and to standardise the style and terminology throughout the Rules of Procedure.