Auteurs

Andrew Howell

Associé

Read More

Stuart Broom

Associé

Read More

Samantha Brendish

Collaborateur senior

Read More
Auteurs

Andrew Howell

Associé

Read More

Stuart Broom

Associé

Read More

Samantha Brendish

Collaborateur senior

Read More

27 avril 2020

Disputes Quick Read – 41 de 62 Publications

Disputes Quick Read: Tomlin Orders – ensuring the confidentiality of settlement terms

  • QUICK READ

Tomlin Orders are commonly used as a method of staying legal proceedings indefinitely following a settlement, save only for allowing the parties to apply to court to enforce settlement terms without having to commence new proceedings.

The question arises, however, whether the terms of the settlement – often confidential in nature – need to be included as a schedule to the Order and, if they are, whether there is a risk that they will become public if non-parties request access to the file under CPR 5.4C.

In our experience, parties try to avoid this issue in different ways. Some ask that the schedule be placed on the court file in a sealed envelope marked "confidential" and that it is not disclosed under CPR 5.4C without the parties' or court's consent, while others (where the court permits it) do not file the settlement terms at all, but simply refer to the existence of a settlement agreement.

Unfortunately, there is no consistent approach by the courts. The Commercial Court, for example, typically hands back terms following the granting of an Order, even where they are set out in a schedule or an annex. The Queen's Bench Division (QBD) did not adopt that practice.

The recently reported case of Zenith Logistics Services (UK) Ltd and others v Coury [2020] EWHC 774 (QB) highlighted this problem. It was an appeal from a QBD Master's decision not to grant Tomlin Orders with confidential schedules unless the parties could justify why confidentiality was required in accordance with the usual rules. He also declined to grant an Order that did not annex the terms, but simply referred to a settlement agreement that was not placed on the Court file.

Thankfully, the judge on appeal found it to be "entirely unobjectionable" for parties to file an Order referring to, but not setting out, the precise settlement terms. He confirmed – rightly in our view – that the open justice principle does not require parties to make their settlement agreements public. In his view, the QBD should not demand to see a settlement agreement which the parties have designated as confidential (save in certain circumstances, such as where litigants in person were involved) – which would have the effect of bringing its practice closer to that of the Commercial Court.

It must be right that, as a general rule, commercial parties should be permitted to resolve disputes on confidential terms and be confident that non-parties will not subsequently be able to obtain them from court files. Best practice remains to refrain from filing the settlement terms at court where possible.

Dans cette série

Cryptoactifs, blockchain et technologie des registres distribués (DLT) et projets Web 3.0

Disputes Quick Read: New obligations on cryptobusinesses to report under the UK sanctions regime

9 August 2022

par Nick Maday, Katie Fry-Paul

Résolution des litiges

Disputes Quick Read: New gateway for serving Norwich Pharmacal Orders and Bankers Trust orders out of the jurisdiction

Welcome news for those pursuing fraud claims in the English Courts

28 July 2022

par Emma Allen, Samantha Brendish

Résolution des litiges

Disputes Quick Read: Key changes to the Disclosure Pilot Scheme

13 September 2021

Résolution des litiges

Disputes Quick Read: UK Supreme Court rules on the territorial extent of the SFO's powers

26 February 2021

par plusieurs auteurs

Résolution des litiges

Disputes Quick Read: Care required when drafting SPA claim notices

23 September 2020

par plusieurs auteurs

Résolution des litiges

Disputes Quick Read: The importance of proper service

26 May 2020

Résolution des litiges

Disputes Quick Read: The latest on Unexplained Wealth Orders

7 May 2020

par plusieurs auteurs

Coronavirus

Disputes Quick Read: COVID-19 and supply chain disruption – key issues

9 April 2020

par plusieurs auteurs

Résolution des litiges

Disputes Quick Read: Tomlin Orders – ensuring the confidentiality of settlement terms

27 April 2020

par plusieurs auteurs

Coronavirus

Disputes Quick Read: Embracing remote hearings – the experience to date

26 March 2020

par plusieurs auteurs

Résolution des litiges

Disputes quick read: pilot error?

13 February 2020

par Andrew Howell

Résolution des litiges

Disputes Quick Read: Disclosure – out of control?

10 November 2021

par Alexandra Boreham

Résolution des litiges

Disputes Quick Read: Dealing in crypto? Be careful what you call it

7 April 2022

par plusieurs auteurs

Call To Action Arrow Image

Latest insights in your inbox

Subscribe to newsletters on topics relevant to you.

Subscribe
Subscribe

Related Insights

Résolution des litiges

Disputes Quick Read: New gateway for serving Norwich Pharmacal Orders and Bankers Trust orders out of the jurisdiction

Welcome news for those pursuing fraud claims in the English Courts

28 juillet 2022
Quick read

par Emma Allen et Samantha Brendish

Cliquer ici pour en savoir plus
Résolution des litiges

Disputes Quick Read: Defining the duty - the limits of the responsibility assumed by professionals

27 juillet 2022
Quick read

par Stuart Broom

Cliquer ici pour en savoir plus
Résolution des litiges

Don't lose your keys: Bitcoin developers do not have a duty to assist owners in recovering lost cryptocurrency

4 avril 2022
Briefing

par Emma Allen et Samantha Brendish

Cliquer ici pour en savoir plus