IMRAN ARIF v DALBIR SINGH SANGER

IMRAN ARIF v DALBIR SINGH SANGER

The Respondent has a real prospect of success in showing that he could not, with reasonable diligence, have discovered the alleged fraud or concealment before 5 July 2013. The need for oral evidence on what inquiries could reasonably have been expected and when a 'trigger' arose justifies refusing summary judgment. The Senior Master did not err in refusing summary judgment, and the Appellant's grounds of appeal are rejected.

Parties
Respondent/claimant: Imran Arif; Appellant/defendant: Dalbir Singh Sanger
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
21 December 2021
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From Summary Judgment Refusal; Interlocutory
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; cross-appeal on costs dismissed
Legal Topics
Limitation of Actions, Fraudulent Misrepresentation, Deliberate Concealment, Summary Judgment, Directors' Duties
Civil Procedure Contract Law Tort Law Limitation of Actions Fraudulent Misrepresentation Deliberate Concealment Summary Judgment Directors' Duties

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 4 Authorities cited 16 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Imran Arif

Respondent/claimant

Dalbir Singh Sanger

Appellant/defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From Summary Judgment Refusal; Interlocutory

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Respondent's claim is time-barred under section 2 of the Limitation Act 1980
  2. 2 Whether section 32(1)(a) or (b) of the Limitation Act 1980 extends the limitation period due to fraud or deliberate concealment
  3. 3 Whether the Respondent could with reasonable diligence have discovered the alleged fraud or concealment before 5 July 2013

Ratio Decidendi

The Respondent has a real prospect of success in showing that he could not, with reasonable diligence, have discovered the alleged fraud or concealment before 5 July 2013. The need for oral evidence on what inquiries could reasonably have been expected and when a 'trigger' arose justifies refusing summary judgment. The Senior Master did not err in refusing summary judgment, and the Appellant's grounds of appeal are rejected.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; cross-appeal on costs dismissed

Orders

  • The appeal is dismissed; the Senior Master's refusal of summary judgment stands.
  • The cross-appeal on the 15% costs discount is dismissed.