In interlouctory proceedings, Ebay sought disclosure of a Tomlin settlement reached by the claimants with a co-defendant. The claimant resisted, saying that the Tomlin order was confidential.
Held: Master Gragg said: ‘on balance it must be right that the eBay Defendants should be able to inspect the confidential terms so that they may analyse the terms in the agreements and take a view about it. In coming to that conclusion I try and take full account of the submissions made to me in relation to the question of confidentiality. Of itself, confidentiality will not be sufficient; for example, it is not a sufficient ground of itself for refusing disclosure. But, nonetheless, I do take account when weighing whether or not it is right to make an order for inspection of these documents the submissions made to me in relation to confidentiality.’
Master Bragg
[2008] EWHC B13 (Ch), [2008] FSR 37
Bailii
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – Apley Estates Company Limited v De Bernales and Others 1947
The parties had settled their original dispute on terms including that: ‘the plaintiffs in the said actions will not nor will any of them sue or continue to sue the said defendants in respect of any of the matters the subject matter of the said . .
Cited – Tomlin v Standard Telephones and Cables Ltd CA 1969
Without prejudice material can be admitted if the issue is whether or not the negotiations resulted in an agreed settlement. Without considering the communications in question it would be impossible to decide whether there was a concluded settlement . .
Cited – Heaton and Others v AXA Equity and Law Life Assurance Society plc and Another HL 25-Apr-2002
The claimant had settled one claim in full and final satisfaction against one party, but then sought further damages from the defendant, for issues related to a second but linked contract. The defendant claimed the benefit of the settlement.
Litigation Practice
Updated: 11 November 2021; Ref: scu.276222
