Teasdale v Teasdale & Anor

A consent order is exceptionally difficult to challenge on appeal. Where a litigant attended the hearing, participated in negotiations and was represented by solicitors and counsel, any failure by counsel to explain the order adequately is a matter between the litigant and the legal advisers. It does not itself provide a ground of appeal. Permission should also be refused where the application is substantially out of time without a persuasive explanation and has no realistic prospect of success.

The applicant sought permission to appeal an order made by consent in the Birmingham County Court on 18 December 2000. The order, made in proceedings under the Inheritance Act concerning her former husband’s estate, was embodied in a Tomlin Order agreed after negotiations between counsel. The respondents were the applicant’s sons and were not represented on the application. The central issue was whether there was any proper basis or realistic prospect for challenging the consent order, given the applicant’s attendance and legal representation and the delay in seeking permission.

1. Application refused. The application for permission to appeal was approximately four months out of time, and no persuasive reason for the delay had been advanced.
2. A consent order is extremely difficult to challenge by appeal. The applicant had been present at the hearing and had participated throughout prolonged negotiations. She had also been represented by solicitors who had instructed counsel.
3. If counsel had failed adequately to explain the contents of the Tomlin Order, that issue was between the applicant and her legal advisers. It could not constitute a ground of appeal.
4. The order was not complicated and its terms gave the applicant a right to occupy her home while meeting the outgoings, 60 per cent of the proceeds if the property were sold, and 50 per cent of a shareholding in National Express Group Plc. These circumstances made misunderstanding difficult to establish.
5. The application had no prospect of success and was described as absolutely hopeless. Permission to appeal was therefore refused.

• Birmingham County Court: On 18 December 2000, His Honour Judge Playford made a Tomlin Order by consent, terminating proceedings under the Inheritance Act.
• Court of Appeal (Civil Division): Permission to appeal the consent order was refused.