Dashwood v Dashwood; 1 Nov 1927

References: (1927) 71 SJ 911, [1927] WN 276, (1927) 64 LJNC 431
Coram: Tomlin J
Ratio: Tomlin J set out the the practice on making an order such as would keep the proceedings alive only to the extent necessary to enable a party to enforce the terms of the settlement.
Held: A provision in the order which required one party to refrain from running a business in competition with the other party could not be enforced unless and until the court made an order for specific performance or for an injunction. Provisions in such an order which might require action by the court, such as releasing funds held in court, or an order for costs, must be included in the body of the order, and not in the schedule. Until a second order has been sought, it would not be possible to apply to commit the party in breach for contempt of court.
This case is cited by:

  • Cited – Practice Note ([1927] WN 290)
    Tomlin J set out the appropriate practice on attaching a private schedule to an order made by consent. The schedule records the terms of the settlement agreed between the parties but which terms are not ordered by the court and are not enforceable . .
  • Cited – Community Care North East (A Partnership) v Durham County Council QBD (Bailii, [2010] EWHC 959 (QB), [2012] 1 WLR 338)
    The parties had settled their dispute and sealed it in a Tomlin Order. The court now asked as to its power to vary such an order. The order required the defendant to reopen a tendering process, but other tenderers now objected, and the council felt . .

(This list may be incomplete)

Last Update: 29-Aug-16
Ref: 412283