First Discount Ltd v Guinness & Ors [2007] EWCA Civ 378 (22 March 2007)

First Discount Ltd v Guinness & Ors [2007] EWCA Civ 378 (22 March 2007)

Applications to reopen the appeal and for extension of time were refused because the applicants failed to demonstrate the absence of alternative effective remedies, the delay was excessive, and finality in litigation must be preserved. The existence of alternative remedies such as cross-actions for deceit or actions to set aside judgments for fraud precluded the use of the exceptional jurisdiction under CPR 52.17.

Citation
[2007] EWCA Civ 378
Parties
Claimant/respondent: First Discount Ltd; Defendants/appellants: Guinness & Ors; Defendant/appellant: Cranston
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
22 March 2007
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Application to Reopen Appeal and for Extension of Time for Permission to Appeal
Outcome
Applications refused
Legal Topics
Reopening of Appeals, Extension of Time, Fraudulent Misrepresentation, Bills of Exchange, Finality of Litigation
Civil Procedure Commercial Law Reopening of Appeals Extension of Time Fraudulent Misrepresentation Bills of Exchange Finality of Litigation

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 4 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

First Discount Ltd

Claimant/respondent

Guinness & Ors

Defendants/appellants

Cranston

Defendant/appellant

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Application to Reopen Appeal and for Extension of Time for Permission to Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the appeal should be reopened under CPR 52.17 (Taylor v Lawrence jurisdiction) in light of new evidence of fraud
  2. 2 Whether an extension of time for permission to appeal should be granted over six years after the original judgment
  3. 3 Whether there is an alternative effective remedy available to the applicants

Ratio Decidendi

Applications to reopen the appeal and for extension of time were refused because the applicants failed to demonstrate the absence of alternative effective remedies, the delay was excessive, and finality in litigation must be preserved. The existence of alternative remedies such as cross-actions for deceit or actions to set aside judgments for fraud precluded the use of the exceptional jurisdiction under CPR 52.17.

Court Disposition

Applications refused

Orders

  • Application to reopen appeal in Mr Cranston's case refused
  • Application for permission to appeal in the case of Mr Michael Guinness, Mr Tony Guinness, and Mrs Carol Guinness refused