Brennan v Bolt Burdon & Ors [2004] EWCA Civ 1017 (29 July 2004)

Brennan v Bolt Burdon & Ors [2004] EWCA Civ 1017 (29 July 2004)

The compromise agreement was not vitiated by a common mistake of law because the parties acted in a state of doubt, not under a definitive but mistaken view of the law; the risk of legal change was assumed as part of the compromise, which was a give-and-take settlement, and the agreement remained performable. Thus, the appeal was allowed and the compromise stands.

Citation
[2004] EWCA Civ 1017
Parties
Respondent/claimant: Margaret Brennan; Appellant/defendant: Bolt Burdon & Ors; Appellant/defendant: London Borough of Islington; Appellant/defendant: Leigh Day & Co
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
29 July 2004
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Court of Appeal (civil Division) Second Tier Appeal From Queen's Bench Division
Outcome
Appeal allowed
Legal Topics
Compromise Agreements, Mistake of Law, Consent Orders, Finality of Litigation, Restitution, Common Mistake, Declaratory Theory of Judicial Decisions
Contract Law Civil Procedure Compromise Agreements Mistake of Law Consent Orders Finality of Litigation Restitution Common Mistake +1 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 20 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Margaret Brennan

Respondent/claimant

Bolt Burdon & Ors

Appellant/defendant

London Borough of Islington

Appellant/defendant

Leigh Day & Co

Appellant/defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Court of Appeal (civil Division) Second Tier Appeal From Queen's Bench Division

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether a compromise of proceedings entered into by parties on the basis of a common mistake of law is void by reason of that mistake
  2. 2 Whether the compromise in this case was vitiated by a common mistake of law

Ratio Decidendi

The compromise agreement was not vitiated by a common mistake of law because the parties acted in a state of doubt, not under a definitive but mistaken view of the law; the risk of legal change was assumed as part of the compromise, which was a give-and-take settlement, and the agreement remained performable. Thus, the appeal was allowed and the compromise stands.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed

Orders

  • The appeal by the London Borough of Islington is allowed; the compromise agreement to discontinue the claim stands and is not set aside.