Tomlin Order leads to a Hush, Hush agreement
In 2021 Sante Global LLP, owned by Gareth & Charles Hales, was awarded a £273 million contract by the UK Government. The Department for Health & Social Care (DHSC), awarded the contract to two brethren owned companies, Mornington 2000 t/a Sterilab Services with Sante Global LLP named as the sub-contractor. The award was to supply Covid tests. The contract was later cancelled following an audit on the premises of the Chinese manufacturer. Sante challenged the cancellation of the contract and took the matter to court, claiming for over £100 million.
The case was scheduled to go to court in June 2026, however the case was concluded quietly a week before Christmas in December 2025. We are unable to ascertain the settlement, as unusually the settlement has been protected by a Tomlin Order.
The case was scheduled to go to court in June 2026, however the case was concluded quietly a week before Christmas in December 2025. We are unable to ascertain the settlement, as unusually the settlement has been protected by a Tomlin Order.
The Caseboard website shows that the inferred case status is Concluded (Settled), it also shows that Judge Mr Justice Waksman ordered a Tomlin Order on the 17th Dec 2025. The Wikipedia definition of a Tomlin Order
A Tomlin Order in the UK is a confidential court order that freezes (stays) legal proceedings on agreed terms, keeping the actual settlement terms in a private, separate schedule (the "Tomlin Schedule") rather than the public court record, allowing enforcement if terms are breached without restarting new lawsuits. It acts as a legally binding contract, often used for debt settlements (like avoiding a CCJ) or complex cases where confidentiality or terms outside court scope are needed, providing flexibility and privacy compared to standard consent orders.
Key Features
A Tomlin Order in the UK is a confidential court order that freezes (stays) legal proceedings on agreed terms, keeping the actual settlement terms in a private, separate schedule (the "Tomlin Schedule") rather than the public court record, allowing enforcement if terms are breached without restarting new lawsuits. It acts as a legally binding contract, often used for debt settlements (like avoiding a CCJ) or complex cases where confidentiality or terms outside court scope are needed, providing flexibility and privacy compared to standard consent orders.
Key Features
- Two Parts: The order has a court part (staying proceedings) and a private schedule (the binding agreement).
- Confidentiality: The detailed settlement terms in the schedule remain private, protecting parties.
- Enforcement: If a party breaks the agreement, the other can apply to court to enforce the schedule's terms, reviving the original case if necessary, rather than starting fresh.
- Contractual: It functions as a contract, allowing parties to agree on terms a court couldn't normally order, like complex financial arrangements.
- Origin: Named after Justice Tomlin (later Lord Tomlin) who established the practice in 1927.
- Debt Settlement: To stop a County Court Judgment (CCJ) from being issued, often to protect employment, by agreeing to make payments.
- Complex Settlements: For disputes where terms are intricate or sensitive.
- Confidentiality: When parties want to keep settlement details out of public records.
This raises a question, that it prevents UK taxpayers from having any transparency on the settlement. At Brethren Exposed we have submitted a Freedom of Information request to the DHSC to confirm;
1) That the case is settled?
2) If they can confirm if the government have had to spend taxpayer money above the court costs?
3) If they can confirm the actual settlement and if not, why not?
It is our view that this is very much in the public interest, particularly as some of the claim made by Sante relied on evidence from a competitor, the same competitor won many hundreds of millions in contracts for Covid tests. That competitor was heavily linked to Dean Hales, the brother of Charles & Gareth Hales.
We will continue to push for transparency on a case that we believe should be gaining much more traction with the wider mainstream media.
1) That the case is settled?
2) If they can confirm if the government have had to spend taxpayer money above the court costs?
3) If they can confirm the actual settlement and if not, why not?
It is our view that this is very much in the public interest, particularly as some of the claim made by Sante relied on evidence from a competitor, the same competitor won many hundreds of millions in contracts for Covid tests. That competitor was heavily linked to Dean Hales, the brother of Charles & Gareth Hales.
We will continue to push for transparency on a case that we believe should be gaining much more traction with the wider mainstream media.