header-logo header-logo

Home Login E-newsletter About us
11 November 2010 / Graham Reid
Issue: 7441 / Categories: Features , Regulatory
printer mail-detail

Compromising positions

© Copyright LexisNexis 2026. All Rights Reserved.

Graham Reid provides a [crash] course in settlement drafting

The coffee’s cold, the mediator is snoring in the room next door and you’ve been negotiating for hours. At last, a compromise is reached. The pressure is on to draft a watertight agreement before “settlement remorse” sets in.
In these circumstances, there is only one thing worse than having to explain to your client that you are uncomfortable drafting an agreement on the spot, and that is confessing months later that the one you drew up is defective. This article therefore offers the anxious litigator a crash-course in settlement drafting and a guide to the traps lying in wait for the unwary.

The anatomy of a settlement

Most settlements can be reduced to six core components, along the following lines [these persons] [settle] [the claims] [arising from] [the facts] [by doing something]. The first section of this article follows this structure.

[these persons]

Identifying and naming the immediate parties to the settlement will be obvious and easy. This is however the moment to reflect on the

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

Read All
Sponsored by
Carey Olsen—Patrick Ormond

Carey Olsen—Patrick Ormond

Partner joinscorporate and finance practice in British Virgin Islands

Dawson Cornwell—Naomi Angell

Dawson Cornwell—Naomi Angell

Firm strengthens children department with adoption and surrogacy expert

Penningtons Manches Cooper—Graham Green

Penningtons Manches Cooper—Graham Green

Media and technology expert joins employment team as partner in Cambridge

NEWS
Read All
NLJ this week: Divorce ‘nuclear weapon’ freezes assets but entangles outsiders
Freezing orders in divorce proceedings can unexpectedly ensnare third parties and disrupt businesses. In NLJ this week, Lucy James of Trowers & Hamlins explains how these orders—dubbed a ‘nuclear weapon’—preserve assets but can extend far beyond spouses to companies and business partners 
NLJ this week: What counts as ‘rent’? Court says labour alone won’t do
A Court of Appeal ruling has clarified that ‘rent’ must be monetary—excluding tenants paid in labour from statutory protection. In this week's NLJ, James Naylor explains Garraway v Phillips, where a tenant worked two days a week instead of paying rent
Your magistrates’ court needs you!
Thousands more magistrates are to be recruited, under a major shake-up to speed up and expand the hiring process
NLJ this week: Freed but failed—justice system leaves the innocent empty-handed
Three men wrongly imprisoned for a combined 77 years have been released—yet received ‘not a penny’ in compensation, exposing deep flaws in the justice system. Writing in NLJ this week, Dr Jon Robins reports on Justin Plummer, Oliver Campbell and Peter Sullivan, whose convictions collapsed amid discredited forensics, ‘oppressive’ police interviews and unreliable ‘cell confessions’
NLJ this week: Clarity on whistleblowing, settlements and tribunal limits
A quiet month for employment cases still delivers key legal clarifications. In his latest Employment Law Brief for NLJ, Ian Smith reports that whistleblowing protection remains intact even where disclosures are partly self-serving, provided the worker reasonably believes they serve the ‘public interest’ 
Copyright © 2026 LexisNexis
back-to-top-scroll