The Claimants seek to set aside a consent order of 11 March 2005 recording the terms of settlement of the action between the parties, reached in a telephone call at 1140 a.m. on 25 February 2005, on the grounds that the Defendant is estopped from asserting the validity of the consent order by reason of the unconscionable conduct of his solicitors, or alternatively on the grounds that the settlement was vitiated by unilateral mistake on the part of the Claimants, that mistake being contributed to by the conduct of the Defendant's solicitors. Whether the case is pu t on the basis of mistake, estoppel or unconscionable conduct, at its heart lies the assertion that the Defendant's solicitor was under a duty to inform the Claimant's solicitor of an earlier offer to settle the matter which she had sent by fax at 10.41 a.m. on 25 February 2005, but which the Claimant's solicitors had not received and knew nothing of during the settlement discussions at 11.40 a.m. on the same day. As an alternative to setting aside the consent order a declaration is sought by the Claimants.

http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/QB/2006/3291.html