Consent orders – id certum est quad reddi potest

Scammell and others v Dicker CA TLR 27 April

The county court judge and the High Court judge on appeal had been wrong to hold that a consent order compromising a boundary dispute was void for uncertainty. The county court judge declared that there was no agreement on the location of the boundary, while the High Court judge said that the county court judge had clearly been entitled to find ‘in the words of the authorities that the consent order was without practical meaning and needed further agreement in order to be implemented’.