Giles Bark-Jones v Andrew Lynch

Giles Bark-Jones v Andrew Lynch

The Recorder correctly applied the blue pencil test; severing the unenforceable clauses did not fundamentally alter the contract's character. The Tomlin Order contained a clear and binding admission of debt. There were no sufficient grounds to permit withdrawal of the admission. The appeal is dismissed.

Parties
Respondent/claimant: Mr Giles Bark-Jones; Appellant/defendant: Mr Andrew Lynch
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
23 March 2026
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Judgment on Appeal
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Enforcement of Tomlin Orders, Severance of Contractual Terms, Admissions in Civil Proceedings, Summary Judgment, Referral Fees in Legal Practice
Contract Law Civil Procedure Enforcement of Tomlin Orders Severance of Contractual Terms Admissions in Civil Proceedings Summary Judgment Referral Fees in Legal Practice

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 6 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Mr Giles Bark-Jones

Respondent/claimant

Mr Andrew Lynch

Appellant/defendant

Procedural Posture

Appeal / Judgment on Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether unenforceable clauses in a Tomlin Order can be severed using the blue pencil test
  2. 2 Whether the Tomlin Order contained a binding admission of debt
  3. 3 Whether the admission of debt could be withdrawn

Ratio Decidendi

The Recorder correctly applied the blue pencil test; severing the unenforceable clauses did not fundamentally alter the contract's character. The Tomlin Order contained a clear and binding admission of debt. There were no sufficient grounds to permit withdrawal of the admission. The appeal is dismissed.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • The appeal is dismissed.
  • The Tomlin Order is enforceable with the severed clauses.