Named questions / Costs enforcement
Richard Lloyd Griffiths
District Judge, South West; appointed 30 January 2017 · Official district-judge directory ↗
Identify the decision behind the conflicting copies.
The decision-record question: The court attributes the TPDO to Richard Lloyd Griffiths and relays his confirmation that he made it. His entry seeks the original decision record and an explanation of how it reconciles the Mitchell-named and Griffiths-named copies.
The recorded response: The confirmation is part of the evidence, not an unanswered point. The remaining questions concern its date, the original instruction and the amendments made by court staff.
The answer required: Identify the dated judicial decision or instruction and the case entry that establishes when it was made. Explain which supplied copy accurately records it.
Read the costs, TPDO and writ investigation → Trace the dated sources →
Questions addressed to Richard Lloyd Griffiths
ENF-03 · Richard Lloyd Griffiths
Which decision does Griffiths’s confirmation identify?
The court relayed your confirmation that you made the TPDO. What was its actual decision date? Identify the contemporaneous decision, instruction or case entry that reconciles the different names and dates on the supplied copies.
The existing confirmation must be tested against the original record, not omitted from the account. Follow the record →
ENF-15 · HMCTS — court administration and order integrity / Jo Copp / Richard Lloyd Griffiths
How was Miss E’s objection to the corrections determined?
Identify the correction request or court-initiated process, its stated basis, the decision-maker and the outcome of Miss E’s objections. What contemporaneous record establishes who made the original decision and when? Explain how PD 40B paragraph 4.4 was considered where a correction application was opposed, and identify any hearing, reasons or record relied upon.
An opposed correction application should, if practicable, be listed before the original judge. The question is what procedure actually occurred, not an assumption that every correction required consent. Follow the record →
The complete question index
Questions across the case
2 existing questions addressed to Richard Lloyd Griffiths. Each link opens its full wording, source and response position.
- ENF-03Which decision does Griffiths’s confirmation identify?Costs enforcement & N260 · Proposed · not sent by this publication
- ENF-15How was Miss E’s objection to the corrections determined?Costs enforcement & N260 · Proposed · not sent by this publication
Order integrity / The challenge and the changes
The name changed. The date changed. Show the authority.
The reviewed amendments followed the October challenges. The court’s explanation is recording error. The demand is for the original judicial instruction, every amendment and the decision on Miss E’s objections.
Compare the sequence and the slip-rule test → HMCTS oversight and questions →