| Case ID |
1ad1e4c0-e259-4080-9b1e-e650ed3ef952 |
| Body |
View case body. Login to View |
| Case Number |
|
| Decision Date |
Mar 20, 2019 |
| Hearing Date |
Oct 10, 2018 |
| Decision |
The Supreme Court of the UK ruled that a judgment obtained by fraud can be set aside without the need for the victim to demonstrate that they could not have discovered the fraud by reasonable diligence before the original trial. The court emphasized that fraud undermines the integrity of the judicial process and that the principle that fraud unravels all must be upheld. The case involved allegations of undue influence and forgery related to a profit share agreement. The court allowed the appellant's claim to proceed to trial, rejecting the respondents' argument that the claim was an abuse of process. |
| Summary |
In the landmark case of Takhar v Gracefield Developments Limited, the Supreme Court of the UK addressed significant issues surrounding fraud in legal proceedings. The case revolved around allegations that a judgment had been obtained through fraudulent means, specifically involving a profit share agreement. The court recognized the crucial legal principle that fraud vitiates judgments and the necessity of allowing victims of fraud to seek redress without being hindered by procedural barriers related to diligence in uncovering the fraud. The ruling highlighted the balance between the need for finality in litigation and the imperative to ensure that justice is served, particularly in cases involving serious allegations of fraud. This decision is poised to impact future cases where the integrity of the judicial process is called into question due to fraudulent actions by one of the parties, emphasizing the courts' role in upholding justice and preventing fraudulent conduct from going unpunished. |
| Court |
Supreme Court of UK
|
| Entities Involved |
Gracefield Developments Limited,
Tanners Solicitors LLP,
Gowling WLG (UK) LLP
|
| Judges |
LORD KERR,
LORD SUMPTION,
LORD HODGE,
LORD LLOYD-JONES,
LORD BRIGGS,
LADY ARDEN,
LORD KITCHIN
|
| Lawyers |
John Wardell QC,
Andrew Mold,
Joseph Sullivan,
Tom Nixon
|
| Petitioners |
John Wardell QC,
Andrew Mold
|
| Respondents |
Joseph Sullivan,
Tom Nixon
|
| Citations |
2019 SLD 1085 = 2019 SCMR 663
|
| Other Citations |
Jonesco v Beard [1930] AC 298,
The Ampthill Peerage [1977] AC 547,
Hip Foong Hong v H Neotia & Co [1918] AC 888,
McDonald v McDonald (1965) 113 CLR 529,
Toubia v Schwenke [2002] NSWCA 34,
Canada v Granitile Inc (2008) 302 DLR (4th) 40,
Director of Public Prosecutions v Humphrys [1977] AC 1,
Arnold v National Westminster Bank plc [1991] 2 AC 93,
Johnson v Gore Wood & Co [2002] 2 AC,
Virgin Atlantic Airways Ltd v Zodiac Seats UK Ltd, [2014] AC 160,
Royal Bank of Scotland plc v Highland Financial Partners lp [2013] 1 CLC 596
|
| Laws Involved |
Not available
|
| Sections |
Not available
|