Tomlin v Standard Telephones & Cables Ltd

JurisdictionEngland & Wales
CourtCourt of Appeal (Civil Division)
Year1969
Date1969

Get this document and AI-powered insights with a free trial of vLex and Vincent AI

Get Started for Free

Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex
105 cases
  • Oh Kuang Liang v Associated Wood Industries Sdn Bhd
    • Malaysia
    • High Court (Malaysia)
    • 1 January 1995
  • Dusun Desaru Sdn Bhd v Wang Ah Yu
    • Malaysia
    • High Court (Malaysia)
    • 1 January 1999
  • Ofulue and Another v Bossert
    • United Kingdom
    • House of Lords
    • 11 March 2009
    ...2 Sometimes letters get headed "without privilege" in the most absurd circumstances, as Ormrod J observed in Tomlin v Standard Telephones & Cables Ltd [1969] 1 WLR 1378, 1384. But where the letters are not headed "without prejudice" unnecessarily or meaninglessly, as he went on to say at p ......
  • Emw Law LLP (Respondent/Claimant) v Mr Scott Halborg
    • United Kingdom
    • Chancery Division
    • 4 May 2017
    ...communications have resulted in a concluded compromise agreement, those communications are admissible. Tomlin v. Standard Telephones and Cables Ltd. [1969] 1 W.L.R. 1378 is an example. … (6) In Muller's case (which was a decision on discovery, not admissibility) one of the issues between th......
  • Get Started for Free
1 firm's commentaries
  • Check Your Privilege In Settlement Discussions – WP Or Not WP, That Is The Question…
    • Cayman Islands
    • Mondaq Cayman Islands
    • 6 April 2020
    ...At A Glance Guide to Legal Privilege and Investigations Footnotes 1 (1889) 23 QBD 335 2 Tomlin v Standard Telephones and Cables Ltd [1969] 3 All ER 201 3 Paragraph 36 4 Paragraph 43 5 Paragraph 45 6 Paragraph 46 7 Paragraph 48 8 Paragraph 44 9 Paragraph 50 10 Paragraph 14 of BGC 11 Paragrap......
2 books & journal articles
  • Dispute resolution
    • United Kingdom
    • Construction Law. Volume III - Third Edition
    • 13 April 2020
    ...may agree to settle some aspects of a dispute, leaving the rest to be resolved by the court: Tomlin v Standard Telephones & Cables Ltd [1969] 1 WLR 1378; Western Broadcasting Services v Seaga [2007] UKPC 19 at [19]. Most cases in the Technology and Construction Court settle: Lord Justice Ja......
  • Tort Law
    • Singapore
    • Singapore Academy of Law Annual Review No. 2005, December 2005
    • 1 December 2005
    ...dragged on and the tort action became time-barred. Choo Han Teck J held that, following Tomlin v Standard Telephones and Cables Ltd[1969] 1 WLR 1378, the issue as to liability had been settled, but not quantum. As such, the plaintiff had a worthless contract, as there was nothing in the con......