Tomlin Order

[tamborine]

Pls explain as wiki is unclear. If neighbors are prosecuted for

1. Play loud music
2. Dump / burn rubbish
3. Tresspass
4. Court costs

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tomlin_order

[Peter Pedant]

blimey
fascinating case - all on deceit
http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2015/327.html#para30
Hayward v Zurich

if you have doubts about the other sides case
and make your own enquiried
are you allowed to plead deceit ( sort of)

shades of Salisbury - are we being deceived by the hose awful Ruskies ? no if we think that they are lying and make independent inquiries

A tomlin order is still 'live' and NOT decided done and dusted ( = res judicata ) so you can go back and enforce it without bringing a new case.

what was the question ?

meanwhile back to hayward v Z

[EDDIE51]

Just a small point, trespass is a civil offence only so it can not be prosecuted , that is only for criminal cases. Even in a civil court trespass in itself is not an offence unless damage is also caused. If damage is caused by trespass the culprit can be sued for the cost in the civil court but not prosecuted.

[New Judge]

What's the rest of the question. At present it reads

"If neighbors are prosecuted for

1. Play loud music
2. Dump / burn rubbish
3. Tresspass
4. Court costs"

[tamborine]

If the court case has been complied with wots the tomlin order for?

[New Judge]

Sorry, you've lost me entirely.

[Peter Pedant]

it was for the possibility of non-compliance
when it was made

The point of it is that it allows the party to go back to court and get a further order without starting a new case

[tamborine]

Is another court case required to instigate Tomlins Order?

[Peter Pedant]

You have to go back to court
but it is the same case

(Makes sense to the lawyers - there is a general principle that a case ends and that is an end to all connected things - that is why Judge Judy ALWAYS dismisses a counterclaim "because he is suing me". A case shall not beget a case.)

Hayward v Z is about whether a Tomlin order prevents a fresh action for deceit because the plaintiff was lying in his teeth. Their Lordships said it didnt