England and Wales Court of Appeal (Civil Division) Decisions

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF JUDICATURE
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL (CIVIL DIVISION)
ON APPEAL FROM BIRMINGHAM COUNTY COURT
(His Honour Judge Playford)

		Royal Courts of Justice Strand London WC2 Friday 14th September, 2001

1. LORD JUSTICE THORPE: This is an application by Mrs Teasdale for permission to appeal an order made by consent in the Birmingham County Court on 18th December 2000 in order to terminate proceedings brought under the Inheritance Act in relation to the estate of her former husband. The respondents to the application were her sons.
2. Both sides were represented by counsel. After quite prolonged negotiation, which seemed at first as if it would succeed and which then seemed to breakdown, there was a sufficient revival for a deal to be done and terms were agreed between counsel and put before the judge in the form of a Tomlin Order.
3. The application for permission to appeal a consent order is an application that is extremely difficult to bring. This application is not helped by the fact that it is considerably out of time, approximately four months out of time, and no persuasive reason is advanced for that delay. But the real reason for its failure is that it has absolutely no prospect of success in this court. Mrs Teasdale was present at the hearing. She was represented by solicitors, who had in turn instructed counsel. A Tomlin Order was made by consent and if Mrs Teasdale's counsel failed to explain the contents of the Tomlin Order adequately to her then that is a matter between her and her legal advisers. It cannot be a ground of appeal.
4. I would discourage Mrs Teasdale from taking this matter any further, despite the strength of her conviction that she is the victim of injustice.
5. First of all, the order is not in any sense a complicated order. The terms were that Mrs Teasdale should have the right to occupy her home so long as she wished, providing that she met the outgoings. It further provided that if the property were sold then she should receive 60 per cent of the proceeds. It further provided that she should receive 50 per cent of a shareholding in National Express Group Plc. It terminated with the understandable provision that there should be no order as to costs.
6. So it is hard to see how there could be any room for misunderstanding as to the terms of a settlement as simple as that. It is hard to see how an applicant attending court, participating throughout long negotiations, represented by solicitor and counsel, should not have had the opportunity to read and approve the order made by the court.
7. For all those reasons, this seems to me to be an absolutely hopeless application and I have no hesitation in dismissing it.
ORDER: Application for permission to appeal refused. (Order not part of approved judgment)