Bhandal v HM Revenue & Customs & Anor [2023] EWHC 1498 (Ch) (21 June 2023)

Bhandal v HM Revenue & Customs & Anor [2023] EWHC 1498 (Ch) (21 June 2023)

The claim is struck out as an abuse of process because it constitutes an impermissible collateral attack on previous judgments. The claimant had knowledge and opportunity to raise forgery allegations earlier, elected to pursue section 89 proceedings, and cannot now relitigate the same issues. Fraud allegations do not justify reopening the matter as the requirements for setting aside for fraud are not met.

Citation
[2023] EWHC 1498 (Ch)
Parties
Claimant/respondent: Baljit Singh Bhandal; Defendant/applicant: His Majesty's Revenue & Customs; Defendant/applicant: Stephen Frederick Broad
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
21 June 2023
Procedural Posture
Application to Strike Out Claim / High Court Judgment on Strike Out Application
Outcome
Claim struck out as abuse of process
Legal Topics
Abuse of Process, Collateral Attack, Fraudulent Procurement of Judgment, Jurisdiction, Compensation Under Criminal Justice Act 1988
Civil Procedure Fraud Public Law Abuse of Process Collateral Attack Fraudulent Procurement of Judgment Jurisdiction Compensation Under Criminal Justice Act 1988

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 6 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Baljit Singh Bhandal

Claimant/respondent

His Majesty's Revenue & Customs

Defendant/applicant

Stephen Frederick Broad

Defendant/applicant

Procedural Posture

Application to Strike Out Claim / High Court Judgment on Strike Out Application

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the present claim is an impermissible collateral attack on previous judgments
  2. 2 Whether previous judgments were procured by fraud
  3. 3 Whether the section 89 proceedings were a nullity due to lack of criminal proceedings

Ratio Decidendi

The claim is struck out as an abuse of process because it constitutes an impermissible collateral attack on previous judgments. The claimant had knowledge and opportunity to raise forgery allegations earlier, elected to pursue section 89 proceedings, and cannot now relitigate the same issues. Fraud allegations do not justify reopening the matter as the requirements for setting aside for fraud are not met.

Court Disposition

Claim struck out as abuse of process

Orders

  • Claim dismissed
  • Application for extended civil restraint order and costs parked pending judgment