Recital -v- Order

A court order says

IT IS ORDERED THAT:-
1. The value of the Former matrimonial home is estimated by Respondent Wife at £200,000.00, it being a two bed end terrace and Applicant Husband does not contest this;
2. [xyz]

It does not say

UPON the value of the Former Matrimonial Home being estimated by Respondent Wife at £200,000.00, it being a two bed end terrace and Applicant Husband not contesting this
IT IS ORDERED THAT:-
1. [xyz]

What, if anything, is the significance of that being in the body of the order instead of in a “recital” before the actual order?

Hmm. I think this may be a drafting error.
The recital normally sets out perameters for the order - things like prior agreements and arrangements. The order sets out the actions agreed or imposed.
As I understand it, the Order bit is enforceable. To have a valuation fixed in an order seems very odd although I guess there may be circumstances in which this is appropriate. Can you shed any light??
NB if this is a draft order that is not yet sealed, ask for it to be changed. If it has been sealed but is a clear drafting error, you can probably ask for it to be corrected under the slips rule.

Hadenoughnow

Neither party had legal representation. Instead, the judge composed the order on their own.

I don't believe there were any special circumstances that made it appropriate to specify the value of the former matrimonial home in the order instead of in the recital.

The order has been sealed.

I think that the words that I quoted from the order are favourable (regardless of their appearing in the body of the order instead of a recital) - so I would prefer not to ask for the order to be corrected.