Legal Definitions - irregular judgment

An irregular judgment is a final decision issued by a court that contains a procedural or formal defect, meaning it was not rendered in strict accordance with the established rules of court or legal procedure. This defect typically relates to how the judgment was obtained or entered, rather than the substance or merits of the case itself. Because of such an irregularity, the judgment may be challenged and potentially set aside or vacated by the court upon proper application.

• Example 1: Lack of Proper Notice

  A small business owner is sued for breach of contract. The plaintiff attempts to serve the lawsuit papers but uses an outdated address, and the owner never receives them. Consequently, the owner doesn't appear in court, and the court issues a default judgment against them.

  Explanation: This judgment is irregular because the defendant was not properly notified of the lawsuit. Proper service of process (notification) is a fundamental procedural requirement. Without it, the judgment was obtained through a defective process, even if the plaintiff's underlying claim might have had merit. The business owner could apply to have this judgment set aside due to the lack of proper notice.

• Example 2: Procedural Error in Entry Timing

  A plaintiff wins a monetary judgment in a civil case. The court's rules state that a judgment cannot be formally entered by the court clerk until 10 days after the judge's order, allowing time for any post-trial motions. However, the court clerk mistakenly enters the judgment on the court's official record only two days after the judge's order.

  Explanation: The judgment itself, based on the judge's decision, might be legally sound. However, its entry was irregular because it violated a specific procedural rule regarding the timing of its formal recording. This procedural defect could lead to the judgment being challenged and potentially vacated or re-entered correctly.

• Example 3: Judgment Entered Without Required Judicial Action

  In a particular jurisdiction, a default judgment for a specific amount of damages requires a judge's review and signature, even if the defendant failed to appear. However, due to an oversight, the court clerk enters a default judgment for a specific sum based solely on the plaintiff's affidavit, without the mandatory judicial review and signature.

  Explanation: While a default judgment might be appropriate given the defendant's non-appearance, the manner in which this particular judgment was entered was irregular. It bypassed a mandatory procedural step (judicial review and signature for damages assessment), making the judgment procedurally defective and subject to being set aside.