Darby v James

In June 2016, in the case of Darby v James, Adam successfully defended the position of the defendant, James. The parties had, years earlier, compromised a land dispute which involved various issues, including problems centring around rights of way. The initial dispute was resolved by agreement through mediation, and the effects of the agreement were detailed and solidified through a Tomlin Order.

The claimant later, through an application into court, sought to escape the agreement by arguing that the Tomlin Order and agreement could not be complied with, and, in effect, had to be set aside. However the court did not agree and decided the matter in favour of the defendant. This case highlights the level of finality that one can expect from both compromise agreements generally, and Tomlin Orders in particular, and also touched on the jurisdictional issues which can arise if a court seeks to do anything other than make an order effecting the terms of a compromise in Tomlin Order form.