A consent order, which had been completed and acted upon, but without affecting interests of third parties, was set aside by the Court upon the ground of common mistake of fact.
Kay LJ said: ‘A compromise takes place when there is a question of doubt and the parties agree not to try it out, but to settle it between themselves by a give-and-take arrangement. I quite agree that if this was a case of that kind it would be extremely difficult to interfere with the order.’
Lindley LJ said: ‘nor have I the slightest doubt that a consent order can be impeached, not only on the ground of fraud, but upon any grounds which invalidate the agreement it expresses in a more formal way than usual.’
Vaughan Williams J said: ‘I agree that if the arrangement come to was a compromise of doubtful rights and a give-and-take arrangement, parties to it could not afterwards have the compromise set aside because upon obtaining fuller information they thought they had made a bad bargain. But, having regard to the evidence, I am of opinion that this arrangement was not a compromise or give-and-take arrangement of the sort I have referred to.’ Nevertheless a compromise agreement was a contract and it does not cease to be so when it is enshrined in a consent order, which is a ‘mere creature’ of the contract.
Lindley LJ, Vaughan Williams J, Kay LJ
 2 Ch 273
England and Wales
Cited – Gerrard Ltd v Read and Another ChD 21-Dec-2001
The applicant was party to a consent order, but appealed part of it which he now asserted was unlawful.
Held: It is settled law that a consent order could be varied where the whole order was vitiated because some or all of it was unlawful. . .
Cited – Margaret Brennan v Bolt Burdon, London Borough of Islington, Leigh Day and Co QBD 30-Oct-2003
The claimant had sought relief for the injury to her health suffered by condition of her flat. The legal advisers had settled the matter, thinking that the claim had not been timeously served. The defendant appealed an order that the compromise was . .
Cited – Brennan v Bolt Burdon and Others, London Borough of Islington, Leigh Day and Co CA 29-Jul-2004
The claimant sought damages for injury alleged to have been suffered as tenant of a house after being subjected to carbon monoxide poisoning, and also from her former solicitors for their delay in her claim. The effective question was whether the . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 17 September 2021; Ref: scu.183441