RoF Wig Jockeys: Draft Judgment Question

Is it OK to put your suggested corrections in tracked changes?  Or is this considered presumptuous, and they should be either comments only on the draft judgment, or listed in a separate document altogether? 

I'm not one nor is it my field, but I have a dangerous amount of confidence; IME you do it in track and add comments ("does this help?", "can we particularise") where necessary.

Use red ink in manuscript. Add comments like “ILL CONSIDERED POINT!!”

Lacks force. Green is for reasoned explanations to the editor of the Times as to why vaccinations are dangerous. 

I might just draw an ejaculating phallus next to every point where the judges went against me.

If I know a judge is sufficiently 'modern' to appreciate tracked changes I will do it in track but only typos and anything to which the judge's only possible reaction would be: that is helpful.

For any more controversial corrections or with an old fashioned judge, separate doc entirely.

I have seen someone rewrite an entire judgment in their own words in track. Didn't go down well. 

Ps you aren't in England are you? Just ask the judge's clerk how he/she prefers it.

I am in Cayman but the judges are all in England.  I think as one of them did comments (but not tracked) on the draft, we'll go with that.  

Not usual to track changes unless you've been expressly asked to do so

generally they tell you specifically not to track changes

usual practice is to provide comments by reference to paragraph numbers and line numbers

Separate doc is the norm. It usually specifies what is required in the embargo notice at the top of page 1. 

Well it says "Counsel are requested to send a list of corrections and other obvious errors in writing (Nil Returns are required)".  Doesn't actually say in a separate document but I suppose that is the clear implication.  However, as 1 of the 3 judges' comments were included in the draft, we did it that way.  But in future I will do a list.