ARTICLE
14 November 2018

Terry v BCS Corporate Acceptances: Judgment Obtained By Fraud

CC
Clyde & Co

Contributor

Clyde & Co  logo
Clyde & Co is a leading, sector-focused global law firm with 415 partners, 2200 legal professionals and 3800 staff in over 50 offices and associated offices on six continents. The firm specialises in the sectors that move, build and power our connected world and the insurance that underpins it, namely: transport, infrastructure, energy, trade & commodities and insurance. With a strong focus on developed and emerging markets, the firm is one of the fastest growing law firms in the world with ambitious plans for further growth.
Court of Appeal rejects attempt to strike out a claim after judgment allegedly obtained by fraud
United Kingdom Criminal Law

Court of Appeal rejects attempt to strike out a claim after judgment allegedly obtained by fraud

Prior caselaw has established that, where it is alleged that judgment was obtained by fraud, a fresh action may be brought to set aside the judgment. In an appropriate case, an appeal may also be brought seeking to rely on fresh evidence and to obtain an order for a retrial (see Noble v Owens (Weekly Update 10/10)). Unless the fraud is admitted, or incontrovertible, the issue of fraud must be both properly particularised and proved. However, in this case, the appellant/defendant sought to argue that the Supreme Court decision in Summers v Fairclough provided an alternative procedure, namely, an application to strike out the claim for abuse of process under CPR r3.4.

The Court of Appeal has now rejected that argument. It held that, although some of the statements made by the Supreme Court were expressed in general and seemingly unqualified terms, they had to be considered in context. The case did not support the argument that an application for strike out could be brought after final judgment: "The time at which the exercise of the power to strike out was being considered in Summers v Fairclough was therefore before final determination of the claim; a time at which there remains a choice between strike out and complete or partial dismissal of the claim. That is not the case once final judgment has been given". In other words, that case had concerned whether the power to strike out could be exercised after trial, rather than after judgment.

Furthermore, CPR r3.4 is a case management power, and once judgment had been perfected, there is no longer any case. The Court of Appeal said it was for the Supreme Court to decide whether the concept of merger of a cause of action with the judgment applies only against a claimant or whether cause of action estoppel prevents a defendant from applying for strike out following judgment. Nor were there any grounds to apply to set aside the judgment under CPR r3.1(7).

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

Mondaq uses cookies on this website. By using our website you agree to our use of cookies as set out in our Privacy Policy.

Learn More