Bank Of Credit & Commerce International SA & Anor v Zafar [2002] EWCA Civ 1896 (22 November 2002)

Bank Of Credit & Commerce International SA & Anor v Zafar [2002] EWCA Civ 1896 (22 November 2002)

The court refused to extend time for appeal because Mr Zafar deliberately failed to attend trial, gave untruthful reasons, and provided no good explanation for the nine-month delay. The application for new evidence was dismissed as the evidence was not likely to have influenced the outcome. The requirements of CPR 39.3 and the overriding objective of finality and fairness in litigation were determinative.

Citation
[2002] EWCA Civ 1896
Parties
Claimant/respondent: Bank of Credit and Commerce International SA (in compulsory liquidation); Claimant/respondent: Bank of Credit and Commerce International (Overseas) Ltd (in liquidation); Defendant/appellant: Iqbal Zafar
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
22 November 2002
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Application to Extend Time for Appeal and to Admit New Evidence
Outcome
Applications dismissed
Legal Topics
Extension of Time for Appeal, Admission of New Evidence, Setting Aside Judgment, Dishonest Misappropriation, CPR 39.3, Relief From Sanctions
Civil Procedure Banking Law Extension of Time for Appeal Admission of New Evidence Setting Aside Judgment Dishonest Misappropriation CPR 39.3 Relief From Sanctions

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 8 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Bank of Credit and Commerce International SA (in compulsory liquidation)

Claimant/respondent

Bank of Credit and Commerce International (Overseas) Ltd (in liquidation)

Claimant/respondent

Iqbal Zafar

Defendant/appellant

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Application to Extend Time for Appeal and to Admit New Evidence

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether time for appeal should be extended after failure to attend trial and failed application to set aside judgment under CPR 39.3
  2. 2 Whether new evidence should be admitted on appeal

Ratio Decidendi

The court refused to extend time for appeal because Mr Zafar deliberately failed to attend trial, gave untruthful reasons, and provided no good explanation for the nine-month delay. The application for new evidence was dismissed as the evidence was not likely to have influenced the outcome. The requirements of CPR 39.3 and the overriding objective of finality and fairness in litigation were determinative.

Court Disposition

Applications dismissed

Orders

  • Application to extend time for appeal dismissed
  • Application to admit new evidence dismissed