Coghlan v Bailey & Anor

Coghlan v Bailey & Anor

The alleged misrepresentation regarding the source of the deposit was not material to the outcome of the trial, as the trial judge's findings were based on a range of objective facts and inferences unrelated to the immediate source of the deposit. There was no realistic prospect that the judgment was obtained by fraud or that the outcome would have been different had the true source of the deposit been known.

Parties
Claimant/applicant: Arran Charlton Coghlan; Defendant/respondent: Daniel Bailey; Defendant/respondent: The National Crime Agency
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
02 July 2015
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Renewed Application for Permission to Appeal
Outcome
Permission to appeal refused
Legal Topics
Fraudulent Misrepresentation, Setting Aside Judgment for Fraud, Materiality of Evidence, Civil Recovery Proceedings
Civil Procedure Proceeds of Crime Fraudulent Misrepresentation Setting Aside Judgment for Fraud Materiality of Evidence Civil Recovery Proceedings

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 2 Authorities cited 3 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 7
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Arran Charlton Coghlan

Claimant/applicant

Daniel Bailey

Defendant/respondent

The National Crime Agency

Defendant/respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Renewed Application for Permission to Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the judgment of Simon J was obtained by fraud due to alleged misrepresentation by Mr Bailey regarding the source of a deposit
  2. 2 Whether the alleged misrepresentation was material and would have affected the outcome of the trial
  3. 3 Whether there was a compelling reason for a trial on the issue of alleged dishonesty

Ratio Decidendi

The alleged misrepresentation regarding the source of the deposit was not material to the outcome of the trial, as the trial judge's findings were based on a range of objective facts and inferences unrelated to the immediate source of the deposit. There was no realistic prospect that the judgment was obtained by fraud or that the outcome would have been different had the true source of the deposit been known.

Court Disposition

Permission to appeal refused