Westlaw UK Delivery Summary

Request made by : SHIBBOLETH IP

Request made on: Friday, 05 October, 2012 at 11:25 PDT

Client ID: ukfederation

Content Type: Westlaw UK
Title : Atkinson v Castan
Delivery selection: Current Document
Number of documents delivered: 1

Sweet & Maxwell is part of Thomson Reuters. © 2012 Thomson Reuters

(Professional) UK Limited
 Page1

John Atkinson Jean Phyllis Maud Atkinson v Rosario Castan Carmen Segura
In the Supreme Court of Judicature
Court of Appeal (Civil Division)
On Appeal from the Sudbury County Court
11 April 1991

1991 WL 839457
Lord Justice Woolf and Lord Justice Staughton
Thursday 11th April 1991

Representation

MR DAVID RICHARDSON , instructed by Messrs Young & Co. (Braintree, Essex), appeared
for the Appellants (Defendants).

MR MICHAEL YELTON , instructed by Messrs Bates Ellison & Morris (Haverhill, Suffolk),
appeared for the Respondents (Plaintiffs).

JUDGMENT (Revised)

LORD JUSTICE WOOLF:

This is an appeal from a decision of the late Judge Williams sitting at the Sudbury County Court. The
decision was given on 20th March 1990. The appeal raises two issues. The first is as to the ability of
a court, here the county court, to enforce an undoubted compromise between the parties without
requiring the party wishing to rely on the compromise to commence fresh proceedings. The second is
whether it is appropriate for the court to make an order, the possible (and I underline the word
“possible” ) result of which will require a party to do an act which is alleged could amount to
committing an offence, the offence here being cutting down a tree which had been made subject to a
preservation order subsequent to the date of the order of the court.
In the words of Mr Richardson, counsel for the defendants who are the appellants before this court,
this is an unfortunate dispute between neighbours as to the future of a sycamore tree which grows on
the defendants' property close to its boundary with the plaintiffs' property. In 1988 the defendants
compromised an action by the plaintiffs, agreeing inter alia to have the sycamore tree removed at
their own expense. They reached this compromise because they believed there was no practical
alternative to the removal of the tree. Subsequently, they received advice that the removal of the tree
was unnecessary. The defendants are tree lovers and will take any point properly open to them in law
to avoid the removal of the tree.
The parties to the dispute are as follows. The plaintiffs were a Mr & Mrs Atkinson and the defendants
were a Rosario Castan and a Carmen Segura. The plaintiffs own Poplar Farm. The defendants own
Wayland Hall. Both these properties are in Chapel Road, Ridgewell, Halstead, Essex, which is a
conservation area. On the plaintiffs' boundary there is a garage which was formally stabling and very
close to that garage on the defendants' land grows a sycamore tree which is approximately 40 years
old. From photographs which have been put before this court, it can be seen that the sycamore tree
now grows up against the garage and, at some stage, roots from the sycamore tree have penetrated
the garage.
In November 1986 solicitors acting on behalf of the plaintiffs raised, for the first time, the question of
the damage caused by the sycamore tree. Subsequently the plaintiffs obtained a report from a tree
surgeon who recommended the removal of the tree. The tree not having been removed, on 6th
January 1988 particulars of claim were issued out of the county court in which the plaintiffs
complained of nuisance. At a later date the defendants obtained a report from a chartered surveyor,
 Page2

which included among its comments the acceptance that in the long term the removal of the
sycamore tree was the only action to be adopted.
On 18th April 1988 the defendants' solicitors wrote to the plaintiffs' solicitors confirming that the
defendants would remove the sycamore tree and meet the cost of the remedial work. Shortly after
that letter was written, the defendants filed an admission in the county court. The admission was in
the form of a defence which admitted the allegations in the particulars of claim save as to the question
of damages.
The plaintiffs' solicitors then prepared a draft consent order. That document is headed “Draft Consent
Order” . It contains the following terms:

“Upon the Defendants having within the Defence filed herein admitted Paragraphs 1 to 6
(inclusive) of the Plaintiffs' Particulars of Claim in this action.
AND UPON the Defendants having agreed to have removed at their expense the sycamore tree
referred to in the aforesaid Particulars of Claim and each and every part thereof (including the
roots).
AND UPON the Defendants having agreed to pay for the remedial work required to the garage of
the Plaintiffs as a result of the damage caused by the said tree and the removal of that tree and
further to make good at their own expense any damage caused to the property of the Plaintiffs as
a result of and during the removal of the said tree and the aforesaid remedial work.
IT IS ORDERED that there be no Order save that the Defendants do pay the Plaintiffs' costs of
and incidental to the claim and to the action herein such costs to be taxed on Scale 3 if not
agreed.
WE, the undersigned hereby CONSENT to an Order in the aforementioned terms.”

That draft order was in due course signed by solicitors then acting for both parties and submitted to
the court.
When the order was drawn up it was signed by the registrar, who is, under the County Court Rules ,
the proper officer for this purpose, and dated 30th June 1988. The order which was drawn up by the
courts and which was at the time accepted by the parties was in accordance with the draft order
subject to two distinctions which were the subject of argument before us.
The order which was drawn up by the court was headed “By Consent It Is Ordered That …” . Then
before the words “That there be no order save that the Defendants do pay the Plaintiffs' costs” there
is added the word “further” , so that the form of order drawn up by the court in this part commences “It
Is Further Ordered That: There be no order save etc…”
The way in which the matter had been dealt with is referred to in an affidavit by the solicitor for the
plaintiffs which makes it clear that he was responsible for drafting the draft order and that he was
responsible for obtaining the signature of the defendants' solicitors to that document and submitting it
to the court.
After the order had been made by the court the defendants were first advised by a builder that no
remedial work was necessary because the tree would not cause further structural problems to the
garage. As a result of the advice of the builder the defendants obtained a report from a further expert.
In his report this further expert stated that the tree had caused no significant structural damage to the
garage and he would not expect it to cause any, but he did indicate that the tree was unsuitable for a
small garden. A further expert was then consulted by the defendants and it was his view that both the
tree and the garage appeared to be co-existing in a state of equilibrium, that underpinning should not
be carried out and there was no necessity to remove the sycamore tree. As I understand the final
consultant's opinion, it was his view that the sycamore tree would not cause any further problems to
the garage because there being no moisture within the area covered by the garage the tree's roots
would not penetrate further.
As a result of this further advice the defendants took no action to carry out the agreement which they
had made freely with the plaintiffs, and on 4th July 1989 the plaintiffs therefore took out an application
in the existing action returnable before the judge in which they sought three orders; the first being that
 Page3

the defendants be ordered forthwith to remove the sycamore tree referred to in the particulars of
claim; the second being that there be judgment for the plaintiffs for damages in an amount to be
assessed, and thirdly that the defendants pay the costs of the application on an indemnity basis. As a
result of that application the judge made an order that the defendants do forthwith remove the
sycamore tree, that there be judgment for the plaintiffs for damages in an amount to be assessed,
and that the defendants do pay the plaintiffs' costs to be taxed on scale 2.
Before the judge and before this court Mr Richardson has submitted that there are well-established
ways of settling actions which enable the court to enforce the terms of settlement without the need for
fresh proceedings to be commenced. However, in this case the plaintiffs did not adopt one of those
well-established methods, and this being so if the plaintiffs wished to enforce the agreement it was
necessary for them to commence fresh proceedings and they could not do so in this existing action.
In support of his contention Mr Richardson relied upon the well-known case of Green v. Rozen [1955]
1 W.L.R. 741 , which contains the judgment of Mr Justice Slade which practitioners for many years
have regarded as providing helpful guidance as to how safely to compromise an action. In that case
an action claiming the return of money lent was settled before trial. On the briefs of counsel the terms
of settlement were set out. When the action was called on for hearing the court was informed of the
settlement and what the terms of settlement were, but no order was made by the court. Subsequently
an order for taxation was made by a Master. The defendant failed to pay one of the instalments he
agreed to pay under the settlement, and the plaintiff then applied to the court for judgment for the
balance due under the terms of the settlement. Mr Justice Slade held that judgment could not be
given because the court had made no order and the original cause of action had been superseded by
the new agreement between the parties comprised in the terms of settlement and the court had no
further jurisdiction in the matter. If the terms of the new agreement were not complied with, the
remedy of the injured party was not by application to the court, but by action upon the new
agreement.
In his judgment, Mr Justice Slade dealt with five methods of disposing of an action, but he made it
clear that these were five methods of which he had experience and that he was not suggesting that
they were exhaustive. The second method he referred to in these terms:

“The second method, which is no doubt more appropriate when the terms of settlement are not
so straightforward as the mere payment of an agreed sum of money by specified instalments, is
to secure an order of the court made by consent that the plaintiff and the defendant shall do the
things which they have respectively engaged themselves to do by the terms of settlement. In
such a case the order would take this form. There would be the title and the preamble, and then
the order would recite, the terms having been agreed between the parties: ‘It is ordered that (a)
the defendant do,’ etc., ‘the plaintiff do.’ etc., making each of the agreed terms an order of the
court that it shall be carried out.”

Mr Justice Slade then went on to the third method (and I am reading from page 744 of the report):

“The third method I have known is what has become known as the Tomlin form of order, a form
suggested by Tomlin J. The Annual Practice, 1955, at page 2007 says: ‘Where an action is
stayed by consent on terms scheduled, the terms cannot be enforced on an application to
commit or attach, but an injunction or an order for specific performance must first be obtained’ ;
and it cites for the authority of that statement of practice Dashwood v. Dashwood . Then it says
(ibid.) ‘After this decision Tomlin J. stated that in future when an action was proposed to be
stayed on agreed terms to be scheduled to the order, the order should be as follows’ ” – and the
judge interposes – “this is the Tomlin form of order – ‘And the plaintiff and defendant having
agreed to the terms set forth in the schedule hereto, it is ordered that all further proceedings in
this action be stayed’ – now these are the important words – ‘except for the purpose of carrying
such terms into effect. Liberty to apply as to carrying such terms into effect.’ ”

The judge then continues:

“I understand from the chief associate that some doubt exists as to how far the Tomlin form of
order will enable the terms set out in the order to be enforced by the court, at all events without
 Page4

first obtaining some further order such as a four-day order in the Chancery Division or an order of
a judge in chambers in the Queen's Bench Division; possibly because it could be said first, that
the schedule to the Tomlin form of order is not part of the order, and, secondly, that in any event
all that the court has ordered is a stay of all further proceedings with a qualification by implication
that they shall not be stayed so far as is necessary for carrying the agreed terms into effect, there
being no positive order of the court that the terms shall be carried into effect. Those are the
difficulties which occurred to me and I was invited to endeavour to clear up any doubt which may
exist.”

Later in his judgment the judge points out that there is no difficulty if his second method is adopted.
With regard to the third case, that is the Tomlin form of order, he says:

“The third case is the Tomlin form of order with which I have already dealt, and parties who
choose that form of order may, if the terms are not complied with, find contentions raised against
the enforcement of it, the nature of which I have already indicated.”

On behalf of the plaintiffs Mr Yelton contends that there is a sixth well-established way of
compromising an action, and in support of the existence of this method of compromising the action
we were referred to the most helpful book on The Law and Practice of Compromise written by David
Foskett. Starting at page 182 of the second edition of that book, Mr Foskett under the heading “Where
there is an order or judgment” sets out various methods of compromising actions, and the third one to
which he refers is where an agreement is filed and made a rule of court. His third category is similar,
but not the same, as the Tomlin order to which Mr Justice Slade referred. With regard to his third
category it is said:

“Where the agreement as a whole has been made a rule of court the process will depend on the
provision sought to be enforced. Where a particular provision has been made an order then the
enforcement process applicable to that order will be appropriate. Where a particular provision
has not been made an order, but nonetheless remains part of the agreement, it is submitted that
the approach will be similar to that which is appropriate to the enforcement of provisions in the
schedule to a Tomlin order: subject to one possible exception, a further court order will be
necessary before enforcement steps can be taken.”

He then goes on to add:

“The view expressed is, it is submitted, the better one. There does, however, appear to be some
doubt on the authorities as to the precise status of an agreement made a rule of court: is it
equivalent to an order and enforceable as such or is it still merely an agreement which requires
further steps to be taken in relation to it before it becomes an order equivalent to an order?”

That there is a long-established practice of compromising actions by making the agreement part of
the decision of the court or, as it is often said, making it a rule of court is clear beyond doubt.
The significance of adopting this course was considered in the case of re Shaw [1918] Probate 47 .
That was a case where there had been an action in the Probate Division for proof of a will in solemn
form which was compromised, and one of the terms of compromise which was signed by all the
parties was that the defendant should pay £300 per annum during his life out of the estate as from the
date of death payable to another party. It was also a term of the compromise that the terms be filed
and made a rule of court. That was done by the decision of the court. A problem later arose as to
what were the tax implications of adopting that course, and in the case of re Shaw this court held that
the £300 per annum was not a sum payable under an order of the court, but was an annuity charged
upon the estate by virtue of contract and as such was chargeable to income tax under the appropriate
provision of the then Income Tax Act .
In his judgment at page 53 Lord Justice Warrington dealt with the effect of the decree which was
made in the Probate Division making the terms a rule of court. He says:
 Page5

“By the decree following those terms the terms were directed to be filed and made a rule of
Court, but there was no judgment in which those terms were merged. In my opinion,
notwithstanding that the terms were made a rule of Court, the liability to pay the annuity remains
contractual. The effect of making the terms a rule of Court enables the terms to be summarily
enforced without the necessity of bringing an action. The terms make the payment a charge on
the estate. An annual sum to be paid out of the estate is as good as an equitable charge as any I
have heard of.”

The position in relation to a rule of court appears to be one which has been well recognised within the
Probate practice for a long period of time. It was the subject of a Practice Direction reported in [1972]
1 W.L.R. 1215. In that Practice Direction, which is known as the Practice Direction (Probate:
Compromised Action) , it was recorded that:

“The judges of the Chancery Division have decided that they will not in general, in sanctioning
compromises of probate actions, continue the practice of making terms of compromise a rule of
court. The effect of such a direction was to make the terms equivalent of an order and this can be
achieved more conveniently by setting out the terms in a schedule to the order itself.”

The Practice Direction indicates what the form of an order, which may be adopted as appropriate,
would be. Lord Justice Staughton has also drawn my attention to Jowitt's Dictionary of English Law,
second edition, 1977, which refers helpfully to the effect of making a compromise a rule of court. I
understand that he will be referring to the entry in Jowitt's Dictionary and so I do not refer further to
the entry, albeit that I regard it as helpful.
As I understand the position, there are three possible situations when parties compromise an action.
First of all, you can have the situation where the court is not involved in the settlement in the sense
that it does not take any steps to incorporate the settlement in the decision of the court. That was the
situation in the case of Green v. Rozen . In such a situation there can be no doubt that a fresh action
has to be commenced to enforce the terms. The second possibility is that you have a situation where
a positive order is made by the court in consequence of the compromise of an action; in that situation
there is no doubt that the compromise can be enforced directly by the court in the normal way. There
is then, in my view, a third situation. That is a situation where you have an agreement which is
recorded as part of the decision of the court, but the agreement is not in terms which require another
party to do or abstain from any action. In other words, the decision of the court does not involve the
court ordering the other party to take any particular action or abstain from any such action, albeit that
the agreement which is recorded in the decision of the court quite clearly involves the party in
question agreeing to take or abstain from action. In that situation, although the original decision of the
court does not contain an order which can be directly enforced, the court may be able within the
existing action to take a further step which will involve the court making an order consequent to its
previous decision, which further order will be enforceable by the court. In such a situation the original
decision would not be an executory decision. It would however still be a part of the decision of the
court. A part which would do no more than set out the terms of the compromise. It would no more be
directly enforceable than a declaration by the court would be.
Where there is a situation where the third course has been adopted, normally it will be the most
simple and straightforward course for the party who wishes to enforce the agreement to ensure that
the agreement is enforced by starting a fresh action. That may involve the issue of a further writ or
originating summons or in the county court particulars of claim. But because the matters covered by
the compromise will be res judicata between the parties, there should be no difficulty in obtaining
summary judgment because there will be no possible defence to the fresh action. The additional costs
and inconvenience to the party who has to take these steps will not be great and it will be a
consequence of his agreeing to a decision of the court in the original action which did not involve an
order which could be directly enforced.
However, there can be a situation where there is good reason for a party not to wish to be involved in
the possible complications which a fresh action would involve. In such a situation, in my view, if there
is a provision in the decision of the court which gives that party liberty to apply for leave to enforce the
terms of the agreement there should be no difficulty. The court would have to consider the situation
when the matter came back before it, and it would be for the court to decide whether or not it was
appropriate in the circumstances to make orders which could be directly enforceable.
 Page6

In this case, however, in addition to the terms of the compromise, Mr Richardson relies on the fact
that there was no express provision in the decision of the court which gave liberty to apply. He
submits that in those circumstances this course was not available. He submits strongly that it would
be wrong for any distinction to be made between the order as drawn up by the court and the order
which was agreed, namely the draft order prepared by the plaintiffs' solicitors. He submits that the
matter should be approached on the basis of the draft order which had been prepared and which it
was intended should be the order which should be made by the court. I am by no means satisfied that
it is open to his clients to adopt that attitude. However, for the purposes of this appeal, I am content to
deal with the matter on the basis of the draft order.
It is clear from that document first of all that the compromise was set out in full in the recitals;
secondly, that it was intended that the compromise so set out should be included as part of the record
of the decision of the court; thirdly, that the purpose of this being done was to ensure that the
compromise would have the added status which results from a compromise being part of or
incorporated into a decision of the court; fourthly, that the obvious purpose of this added status was to
put the plaintiffs in a position where they would have the advantages, which would not otherwise be
available, of going back to the court in the existing action to have the compromise enforced if the
court was prepared to make the necessary orders to achieve this result; and fifthly and finally, that in
these circumstances it was implicit, although not express, that there should be liberty to apply for the
purposes of enforcing the action. When the matter came before the court, the court had a discretion
as to whether or not in the circumstances to make the further orders. On the material which was
before the judge in this case there was ample reason why he should regard it as sensible and
desirable that the plaintiffs should not be required to bring a fresh action. He then made the orders to
which I have already referred.
I would, therefore, uphold the decision of the learned judge on the first of the two points arising on this
appeal for the reasons which I have indicated, which are not precisely the same as those of the judge.
The views I express appear to me to be in accord with the judgment of Lord Justice Megaw in the
case of The Royal Society of Literature v. Margaret Isabel Lowenthal decided on 10th March 1978,
the transcript of which has been placed before the court. At page 9 of his judgment Lord Justice
Megaw said this:

“In all the circumstances, it appears to me that this Court does have jurisdiction. This Court has
jurisdiction, where it appears to the Court that there has been non-compliance with something
which is to be treated as being an order of the court, to take whatever measures are appropriate,
having regard to the circumstances of the case and bearing in mind the necessity of looking fairly
to the interests of both parties, to see that a party in whose favour an order of the court has been
made shall not be left to suffer by reason of a breach of that order by another party. Where the
matter comes before the Court and it appears that there is at any rate a strong prima facie case
that that is what has happened, or what may have happened, then I think that this Court is
entitled to deal with the matter in such a way as to make sure that a party is not left without the
due and appropriate remedy merely because of some technicality of procedure. In the
circumstances here, particularly having regard to the provision for liberty to restore, I think that
Mr. Justice Jupp did have, and this Court does have, jurisdiction upon this motion to deal with the
matter in such a way as to do justice between the parties.”

I now turn to the second point which arises on the appeal. Here, the problem is the possible collision
between the private rights of the parties arising out of the agreement to compromise the action and
the local authority's public duties in relation to tree preservation. So far as those duties of the local
authority and the law on this subject are concerned, there being no dispute between the parties, the
matter was set out shortly and succinctly by counsel without the court being taken through the
legislation.
The position as agreed between the parties so far as tree preservation orders in a conservation area
are concerned is, as I understand it, as follows. If a tree is in fact creating a nuisance, then,
notwithstanding the fact that it is a tree within a conservation area, that tree can be cut down without
the person cutting down the tree contravening the law. However, in a conservation area, subject to
the question of there being no nuisance, a person who is contemplating cutting down a tree is
required to give notice of his intention to do so to the local authority and the local authority then has
six weeks in which to decide whether to make a preservation order or not. If the local authority makes
a preservation order, then it is still open to an owner of land to cut down a tree, but he then takes the
 Page7

risk that if he does so and there was in fact no extant nuisance being created by the tree, he will be
guilty of a criminal offence. In those circumstances, he would be well-advised to have the situation as
to the existence or non-existence of the nuisance clarified before the action of cutting down a tree is
taken.
The defendants say in this case that having regard to the reports which they subsequently obtained it
would be quite wrong for them to be ordered to cut down the tree because the situation is one where
the local authority could well decide to make a preservation order. If that happened, the fact that the
parties had previously agreed that there was a nuisance and the fact that as between the plaintiffs
and the defendants this matter was the subject of a decision of the court would not avail the
defendants, if they were prosecuted. What is more the defendants would have contravened the law in
an area where they would be anxious not to do so.
So far as the likelihood of the local authority making a preservation order in this case is concerned, I
can only say that having seen the photographs of the position of this tree against this garage I would
regard it as highly unlikely. But I do not consider that it would be appropriate for this appeal to be
dealt with by this court on the impression created on the minds of this court by the photographs which
they have seen. Whether or not the tree is an appropriate tree to preserve is one for the local
authority and not for this court. Nonetheless, I see no problems at present in the order which has
been made by the court, which is the subject of this appeal.
It is true that that order requires the defendants to cut down the tree forthwith. However, in this
context that order requires the defendants to do so as soon as reasonably practicable. The words “as
soon as reasonably practicable” are sufficiently flexible to enable the defendants, if they consider this
is an action which they need to take, to give the necessary notice to the local authority. The word
“forthwith” is sufficiently flexible to enable the six-week period, which the local authority have for a
decision, to lapse before the defendants are required to cut down the tree. If the local authority decide
to take no action, then there is nothing to prevent the defendants complying with the order of the
court. If the local authority take the decision to make a preservation order, then it appears to me that a
mandatory order of this sort would be one which the court would have to reconsider in those
circumstances. It would then have to be determined by the court whether or not there was a situation
where the defendants, by virtue of the order of the court in its present form, were being required to do
an act which was unlawful. If that was the situation, the courts would have to recognise the reality of
the situation and vary the order which now exists as appropriate. The present order should stand
unless and until the court comes to the conclusion because of a change of situation it needs to be
revised. I note that the present order does not bear the words “liberty to apply” . No doubt those
words are implicit in the order which was made which is the subject of the appeal. However, for the
avoidance of any problem of the same sort in the future, I would, speaking for myself, direct that the
order should be varied so that those words do appear, albeit that it should be also made clear that the
application, if further application is necessary, should not be made to this court but to the court below.
I would therefore dismiss this appeal.
LORD JUSTICE STAUGHTON:
I agree that this appeal should be dismissed for the reasons given by Lord Justice Woolf, subject to
the variation of the order which he has proposed. In particular I agree that when an order of the court
recites the terms of a compromise agreement reached by the parties, but does not itself direct that
they shall comply with it, two consequences follow. First, execution cannot issue as of course to
enforce the agreement. Some further step is necessary. Secondly, that further step can, in an
appropriate case, be an application in the existing action. There is in such a case no need to start a
fresh action.
I have been concerned to discover the precise meaning of the expression “to make an agreement a
rule of court” . The last occasion that I have found when this expression was used in a United
Kingdom statute was section 17 of the Common Law Procedure Act 1854 , although it may well have
occurred later for all I know. That section was replaced in 1889 by section 1 of the Arbitration Act of
that year which used the expression “as if it had been made an order of court” rather than “rule of
court” . That in turn was replaced by section 1 of the Arbitration Act 1950 which referred neither to a
rule of court nor an order of the court.
It appears to me that continued reference to making an agreement an order of the court except in the
context of Probate practice, at any rate until the Practice Direction which Lord Justice Woolf has
 Page8

mentioned, is yet another example of lawyers using obsolete language which not all of them
understand.
The passage which Lord Justice Woolf has referred to in Jowitt's Dictionary of English Law, 1977,
second edition, is at page 1596:

“A rule of court generally means a rule of procedure. Sometimes, however, it means an order
made by a court in a particular action or matter: thus a compromise of an action may, if approved
by the court, be made an order of the court in which the action was brought. The making of a
compromise a rule of court gives it the same effect as if the terms of the compromise were
contained in an order of the court.”

That is a somewhat abbreviated description of the consequences which follow when a compromise
agreement is recited in an order of the court.
Jowitt cites the case of McCallum v. Country Residences Ltd [1965] 1 W.L.R. 657 . That was a
somewhat similar case to the present one. There had there been correspondence between solicitors
which was said to have resulted in an agreement to settle the action for the sum of £900 and costs.
The plaintiffs sought an order in Tomlin form. The Official Referee concluded that it was proper to
make a Tomlin order, but this court by a majority held that the correspondence did not reveal an
agreement to an order in Tomlin form. Consequently, the order was set aside and the plaintiffs were
left to bring a fresh action to enforce the compromise.
Here there is no doubt that the parties did agree to the form of order that was made, and they did
agree that the order should recite the terms agreed between them. In those circumstances, I do not
think that the decision in McCallum's case applies. As Lord Justice Woolf has said, the effect of
reciting the terms of the agreement is that in an appropriate case application may be made in the
same action to enforce those terms.
Accordingly, I too would dismiss this appeal.
Order: Appeal dismissed with costs.
Crown copyright
© 2012 Sweet & Maxwell