The Court of Appeal held that consent orders entered as part of a compromise agreement, which were conditional on the scheme falling apart before they could be filed, did not constitute an unconditional acknowledgement of indebtedness sufficient to restart the limitation period. Where the liability acknowledged in a compromise was precisely that provided by the agreement itself — namely, a liability to perform obligations and, if not performed, to submit to judgment — and those obligations were fully performed, no further acknowledgement of liability remained outstanding. The position was analogous to Surrendra, where payment of an admitted balance left no acknowledgement exceeding the discharged liability.
The full text is available to signed-in members, including the 2 later cases that cite this judgment.