Evans v Tiger Investments Ltd. & Anor [2002] EWCA Civ 161 (20th February, 2002)

Evans v Tiger Investments Ltd. & Anor [2002] EWCA Civ 161 (20th February, 2002)

The appeal was dismissed because Tiger failed to demonstrate reasonable diligence in obtaining the fresh evidence for use at trial, and the judge's findings on shareholder acquiescence and the binding nature of the charge were not reasonably open to challenge. The overriding objective did not justify relaxing the rules for admitting new evidence, and justice and finality required upholding the original judgment.

Citation
[2002] EWCA Civ 161
Parties
Claimant: Dennis Pritchard Evans; First Defendant: Tiger Investments Limited; Second Defendant: David John Moore
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From County Court Judgment
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Ratification of Company Acts, Authority of Agents, Ultra Vires, Admissibility of Fresh Evidence, Legal Charges, Shareholder Acquiescence
Company Law Property Law Civil Procedure Ratification of Company Acts Authority of Agents Ultra Vires Admissibility of Fresh Evidence Legal Charges +1 more

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

Parties

Dennis Pritchard Evans

Claimant

Tiger Investments Limited

First Defendant

David John Moore

Second Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From County Court Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether a legal charge executed by a shareholder without formal authority is binding on the company
  2. 2 Whether shareholder acquiescence validates an otherwise unauthorised act
  3. 3 Admissibility of fresh evidence on appeal

Ratio Decidendi

The appeal was dismissed because Tiger failed to demonstrate reasonable diligence in obtaining the fresh evidence for use at trial, and the judge's findings on shareholder acquiescence and the binding nature of the charge were not reasonably open to challenge. The overriding objective did not justify relaxing the rules for admitting new evidence, and justice and finality required upholding the original judgment.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Permission to adduce fresh evidence refused
  • Appellant to pay Mr Evans’ costs of the appeal, subject to detailed assessment if not agreed