- Setting aside judgment for fraud, even if new evidence could reasonably have been discovered earlier (Takhar v Gracefield Developments)
- Practical implications
- How did the alleged fraud give rise to the judgment?
- What are the requirements to set aside a judgment obtained by fraud?
- What was the additional issue in this case?
- Did the claimant's application to set aside for fraud yet amount to an abuse of process?
- Permission to amend and the limitation period
- LA 1980, s 32
- CPR 17.4—amendments and limitation
- Court details
Dispute Resolution analysis: the High Court has stated that a judgment can be set aside for fraud, if the loser satisfies the requirements summarised in RBS v Highland, without him having also to show that the new evidence could not reasonably have been discovered in time for the original trial. In so concluding, Newey J traces the various authorities on the specific issue as to whether the evidence of the alleged fraud ought reasonably to have been discovered in time for the original trial and distinguishes those authorities of the House of Lords and Privy Council on the basis that comments on the position under domestic law in this respect were made obiter in those decisions. The judgment also provides a useful summary in construing Limitation Act 1980, s 32 as regards fraud and deliberate concealment.
Sign in or take a trial to read the full analysis.
To continue reading this news article, as well as thousands of others like it, sign in to LexisPSL or register for a free trial