Civil fraud

Introduction to civil fraud

Why you need to know about civil (commercial) fraud

A report in August 2023 showed an increase in the number of commercial fraud cases being heard in the English courts in recent years—see News Analysis: More fraud claims filed in English courts, study finds.

Also in August 2023, legal commentators noted that ‘the potential of [AI] technology to augment fraudsters’ efforts is arguably unprecedented’—see News Analysis: What to know about AI fraudsters before facing disputes.

Therefore the importance of understanding what is or may be involved in a civil fraud dispute has never been more important.

What is fraud?

Fraud can best be described as the deliberate or intentional use of misrepresentation, deception or dishonesty to deprive, in order to make a gain or achieve an advantage for someone or something or to disadvantage or cause loss (usually financial) to another person or party. That said, it is not always necessary that a scenario which has, at its heart, elements of dishonesty, requires establishing actual dishonesty on the part of some or all of the protagonists in order to seek a civil remedy.

Fraud

To view the latest version of this document and thousands of others like it, sign-in with LexisNexis or register for a free trial.

Powered by Lexis+®
Latest Dispute Resolution News

The English Court’s powers to issue injunctive reliefs aimed at preserving arbitral confidentiality. (A Corporation v Firm B and another)

Arbitration analysis: This case arises from the claimant’s application for interim injunctive reliefs (the ‘Application’) seeking, among others, to restrain the first defendant (‘Firm B’), including any of its branches from (i) acting for Corporation C in an ongoing arbitration against Corporation D (the ‘Second Arbitration’); and (ii) providing any confidential information from a previous arbitration between the Claimant and Corporation B (the ‘First Arbitration’), to Corporation C. In determining the Application, the Court considered the principles governing the grant of interim reliefs as established in American Cyanamid v Ethicon Ltd. The court also considered the boundaries of arbitral confidentiality by considering what documents and information the obligation of arbitral confidentiality covers, and the relevant exceptions to this obligation. The court concluded that the claimant was not entitled to the requested reliefs. After examining the claimant's allegations of breaches of arbitral confidentiality, the court found no breach, except for some limited settlement information from the First Arbitration. The court was also not persuaded that there was a real risk of confidential information being transferred between Firm B’s London and Asia offices. Consequently, the court decided that granting the injunction would significantly prejudice Firm B and Corporation C, while not granting it would cause no prejudice to the claimant and only minimal prejudice to Corporation D. Written by Dr. Ademola Bamgbose, solicitor advocate and senior associate at Hogan Lovells, London and IfeOluwa Alabi, associate at Hogan Lovells, London.

View Dispute Resolution by content type :

Popular documents