header-logo header-logo

01 January 2010
Issue: 7397 / Categories: Case law , Judicial line , In Court
printer mail-detail

The all-singing / all-dancing Tomlin order

Is it objectionable for the schedule of a Tomlin order to stray beyond the confines of the proceedings?

Is it objectionable for the schedule of a Tomlin order to stray beyond the confines of the proceedings (eg, by dealing with payments not referable to the claim) and, if not, can all the heads of agreement be enforced in those same proceedings?

It is not objectionable and is sometimes a convenient way of recording settlement of issues which had not reached the stage of proceedings. The scheduled terms are not a judgment and are not directly enforceable as if they were.

Commonly, the stay order to which the terms are scheduled will give a party permission to apply for a judgment or further order in the event of breach.

An application for an order outside the original scope of the claim might well be refused as it would imply a need for amendment and some procedural complication when separate proceedings based on the settlement contract might well be more straightforward; but all will

If you are not a subscriber, subscribe now to read this content
If you are already a subscriber sign in
...or Register for two weeks' free access to subscriber content

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Bell Yard Kysen—Liz Giles

Bell Yard Kysen—Liz Giles

Bell Yard Kysen appoints senior legal PR and ex-government communications adviser, Liz Giles

Clarke Willmott—Lee Edwards

Clarke Willmott—Lee Edwards

Clarke Willmott boosts Southampton commercial property team with addition of partner Lee Edwards

Lime Solicitors—four promotions

Lime Solicitors—four promotions

Lime Solicitors announces four promotions

NEWS
The Attorney General, Ellie Reeves KC MP, and Solicitor General, Andy Slaughter KC MP, marked the 25th anniversary of Pro Bono Week by joining lawyers, charities, students and parliamentarians at events celebrating voluntary legal work
A polished legal defence may owe more to artificial intelligence than legal merit—and creditors risk paying the price in delay and expense
Witness evidence can be compromised by AI before a solicitor sees the draft, leaving safeguards focused on authorship incomplete
Should a conviction stand when a later ruling reveals that the law underpinning it was wrong? The answer exposes a clash between finality and justice
Possession claims are entering a new digital era, with procedural traps awaiting practitioners who assume familiar rules still govern every step
back-to-top-scroll