Practice – Compromise of action. Construing a 2012 order as a whole, it was quite clear that it did not vary the terms of the schedule to a 2010 Tomlin order between the parties or purport to supersede the contractual bargain between them set out in the schedule to that order, nor could it. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, in dismissing the appellant's appeal, held that the 2012 order provided the mechanism by which the contractual agreement contained in the 2010 Tomlin order was to be enforced.