An order was given by a judge during a pre-hearing and sent to both parties by correspondence.
The order was not appealed or challenged at any point before the second hearing.
During the second hearing, a new judge decided to "treat the order as not having been made" because there were still pending issues, and proceeded to give a new judgement as if the order had never been made.
My question is, whether this is a procedural error or error in law, and if so, what legal sources/ references can I use to prove the point.
This is an unfair redundancy, whistle-blowing case.
The first order was on admissibility of evidence over which the respondent was claiming legal privilege (ruled admissible).
The second judge undid the first order (ruled the evidence inadmissible) on legal privilege grounds. He then struck out the case to my detriment on the basis that privilege had been compromised.
I was of course not expecting to have to reason on admissibility in the second hearing. I don't quite understand what the point of an order is, or even an appeal is, if an order is not considered final after the appeal time has lapsed. Is there any law/ case law that i can reference to make an argument?
Thanks for looking this up on a Sunday evening :)
Please continue the search. I would think that the question is actually quite easy and straightforward.
This was a very basic question. Please cancel it and issue a refund. I may try again in non-holiday period.