First Discount Ltd v Cranston [2002] EWCA Civ 71 (24 January 2002)

First Discount Ltd v Cranston [2002] EWCA Civ 71 (24 January 2002)

Despite the admission of new evidence, the defendant failed to provide a satisfactory explanation for the substantial delay in seeking to appeal and did not establish a credible defence of fraud; the judge's exercise of discretion in refusing an extension of time was correct and unassailable.

Citation
[2002] EWCA Civ 71
Parties
Claimant (respondent): First Discount Limited; Defendant (applicant/appellant): James Neil Percival Cranston
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
24 January 2002
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From High Court (queen's Bench Division) to Court of Appeal
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Bills of Exchange, Fraud, Summary Judgment, Extension of Time, Admissibility of Fresh Evidence
Commercial Law Banking Law Bills of Exchange Fraud Summary Judgment Extension of Time Admissibility of Fresh Evidence

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 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

First Discount Limited

Claimant (respondent)

James Neil Percival Cranston

Defendant (applicant/appellant)

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From High Court (queen's Bench Division) to Court of Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the defendant should be granted an extension of time to appeal the summary judgment.
  2. 2 Whether fresh evidence should be admitted on appeal.
  3. 3 Whether the defendant has a viable defence of fraud against the claimant as a 'sheltered holder' of bills of exchange.

Ratio Decidendi

Despite the admission of new evidence, the defendant failed to provide a satisfactory explanation for the substantial delay in seeking to appeal and did not establish a credible defence of fraud; the judge's exercise of discretion in refusing an extension of time was correct and unassailable.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Application to extend time granted
  • Application to admit fresh evidence granted