header-logo header-logo

19 May 2011
Issue: 7466 / Categories: Case law , Judicial line , In Court
printer mail-detail

Child settlement order

Why does the practice form for approval of a child settlement (N292) provide for a stay of proceedings...

Why does the practice form for approval of a child settlement (N292) provide for a stay of proceedings when damages and costs are directed to be paid under the order? It reads like a Tomlin order but surely it is not.

We agree that the form which has been in existence for some years is unusual in that it orders payments to be made etc but then ends by staying the proceedings with permission to apply for the purpose of carrying the order into effect. It therefore has to be regarded as a Tomlin order. It does, of course, contain the provisions which have been agreed, subject to the court’s approval. The reason for the stay may well be to ensure that the court is not functus officio and can subsequently deal with investment decisions, applications to withdraw capital and so on.
 

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

Weightmans—Jason Slatcher

Weightmans—Jason Slatcher

Weightmans appoint new Chief Technology Officer

Mishcon de Reya—trainees

Mishcon de Reya—trainees

Mishcon de Reya announces trainee retention rate of 86%

Sackers—Charlotte Adams & Fraser Sutton

Sackers—Charlotte Adams & Fraser Sutton

Sackers welcomes two new Graduate Solicitor Apprentices

NEWS
LexisNexis is delighted to announce the launch of the LexisNexis Legal Awards 2027, celebrating outstanding achievement, innovation and impact across the legal profession
The Legal Services Board (LSB) is to take further enforcement action against the Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA), setting additional performance targets and ‘intensifying’ its oversight, it has said
Regulators missed several opportunities to intervene in PM Law Group before it collapsed, an independent review by City firm Jenner & Block has found
An employer’s vicarious liability for the alleged torts of an employee cannot be transferred by TUPE, the Court of Appeal has confirmed
Tiered fees of up to £1,500 for Legal Ombudsman (LeO) cases could leave firms with little option but to pay out, lawyers have warned
back-to-top-scroll