Ackerman v Thornhill & Ors [2017] EWHC 99 (Ch) (26 January 2017)

Ackerman v Thornhill & Ors [2017] EWHC 99 (Ch) (26 January 2017)

The claim is barred by res judicata and the terms of the Consent Order, as the matters now raised could and should have been raised in the 2011 claim. The alleged new evidence was disclosed or available during the prior proceedings, and does not meet the threshold for setting aside the judgment for fraud. There is no sufficient material to justify re-opening the prior judgment or orders.

Citation
[2017] EWHC 99 (Ch)
Parties
Claimant: Joseph Ackerman; First Defendant: Andrew Robert Thornhill QC; Second Defendant: Naomi Ackerman; Third Defendant: Barry Ackerman; Fourth Defendant: BANA One Limited
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
26 January 2017
Procedural Posture
Application to Strike Out or for Summary Judgment / High Court Judgment
Outcome
Claim struck out; summary judgment granted for Defendants
Legal Topics
Res Judicata, Fraud, Expert Determination, Disclosure, Settlement Agreements
Civil Procedure Contract Law Equity Trusts Res Judicata Fraud Expert Determination Disclosure +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 4 Authorities cited 11 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Joseph Ackerman

Claimant

Andrew Robert Thornhill QC

First Defendant

Naomi Ackerman

Second Defendant

Barry Ackerman

Third Defendant

BANA One Limited

Fourth Defendant

Procedural Posture

Application to Strike Out or for Summary Judgment / High Court Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the 2015 claim is barred by res judicata or settlement terms
  2. 2 Whether the judgment in the 2011 claim was obtained by fraud, collusion, or dishonesty
  3. 3 Whether new evidence justifies setting aside the prior judgment

Ratio Decidendi

The claim is barred by res judicata and the terms of the Consent Order, as the matters now raised could and should have been raised in the 2011 claim. The alleged new evidence was disclosed or available during the prior proceedings, and does not meet the threshold for setting aside the judgment for fraud. There is no sufficient material to justify re-opening the prior judgment or orders.

Court Disposition

Claim struck out; summary judgment granted for Defendants

Orders

  • Claim against Defendants struck out
  • Summary judgment entered for Defendants