Ackerman v Thornhill & Ors

Ackerman v Thornhill & Ors

The 2015 claim is barred by res judicata, issue estoppel, and the Henderson v Henderson doctrine because the documents and issues relied upon by the Claimant were available or could have been discovered with reasonable diligence in the 2011 proceedings. There is no realistic prospect of setting aside the 2011 judgment for fraud, as the alleged fresh evidence was disclosed in the earlier litigation and there is no operative fraud or material non-disclosure.

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
Civil / Application to Strike Out or for Summary Judgment
Outcome
Claim struck out
Legal Topics
Res Judicata, Issue Estoppel, Abuse of Process, Setting Aside Judgment for Fraud, Expert Determination, Fiduciary Duties
Civil Procedure Contract Law Equity Res Judicata Issue Estoppel Abuse of Process Setting Aside Judgment for Fraud Expert Determination +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 16 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

Civil / Application to Strike Out or for Summary Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the 2015 claim is barred by res judicata, issue estoppel, or abuse of process doctrines
  2. 2 Whether the 2011 judgment can be set aside on grounds of fraud, collusion, or dishonesty
  3. 3 Whether the documents relied upon as evidence of fraud were available or could have been discovered with reasonable diligence in the earlier proceedings

Ratio Decidendi

The 2015 claim is barred by res judicata, issue estoppel, and the Henderson v Henderson doctrine because the documents and issues relied upon by the Claimant were available or could have been discovered with reasonable diligence in the 2011 proceedings. There is no realistic prospect of setting aside the 2011 judgment for fraud, as the alleged fresh evidence was disclosed in the earlier litigation and there is no operative fraud or material non-disclosure.

Court Disposition

Claim struck out

Orders

  • The 2015 claim is struck out in its entirety.