Zambia v Meer Care & Desai (a firm) & Ors [2008] EWCA Civ 754 (09 July 2008)

Zambia v Meer Care & Desai (a firm) & Ors [2008] EWCA Civ 754 (09 July 2008)

The Court of Appeal held that Mr Basile's account of non-participation was capable of belief and, if believed, amounted to a good reason for non-attendance. The absence of a clear letter before action and the volume and language of served documents contributed to his lack of understanding. The additional invoices, if genuine, provided a reasonable prospect of success. The requirements of CPR 39.3(5) were satisfied, justifying setting aside the judgment against Mr Basile and remitting the case for retrial.

Citation
[2008] EWCA Civ 754
Parties
Claimant Respondent: The Attorney General of Zambia for and on behalf of the Republic of Zambia; Defendant Appellant: Boutique Basile (Antonino Basile)
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
09 July 2008
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From High Court (chancery Division) to Court of Appeal
Outcome
Appeal allowed in part; judgment against Mr Basile set aside; case remitted for retrial on limited basis.
Legal Topics
Setting Aside Judgment, Default Judgment, Dishonest Assistance, Knowing Receipt, Constructive Trust, Money Had and Received, Conspiracy to Defraud, Service of Proceedings, Practice Direction – Protocols, Admission of Fresh Evidence on Appeal
Civil Procedure Trusts and Equity Fraud Setting Aside Judgment Default Judgment Dishonest Assistance Knowing Receipt Constructive Trust +5 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 13 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 6
Sign in to unlock

Parties

The Attorney General of Zambia for and on behalf of the Republic of Zambia

Claimant Respondent

Boutique Basile (Antonino Basile)

Defendant Appellant

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From High Court (chancery Division) to Court of Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether judgment against Mr Basile should be set aside due to non-attendance and lack of understanding of proceedings
  2. 2 Whether Mr Basile should be permitted to adduce fresh evidence on appeal
  3. 3 Whether the requirements of CPR 39.3(5) are satisfied (promptness, good reason for non-attendance, reasonable prospect of success)

Ratio Decidendi

The Court of Appeal held that Mr Basile's account of non-participation was capable of belief and, if believed, amounted to a good reason for non-attendance. The absence of a clear letter before action and the volume and language of served documents contributed to his lack of understanding. The additional invoices, if genuine, provided a reasonable prospect of success. The requirements of CPR 39.3(5) were satisfied, justifying setting aside the judgment against Mr Basile and remitting the case for retrial.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed in part; judgment against Mr Basile set aside; case remitted for retrial on limited basis.

Orders

  • Set aside paragraphs 11 and 21 of the order dated 4 May 2007 and paragraph 1.12 and paragraph 10 (so far as it relates to Mr Basile) of the order dated 29 June 2007.
  • Remit the case to the trial judge for retrial of the claim against Mr Basile, with findings as to the Zamtrop conspiracy and the nature of the funds to stand except as to Mr Basile's involvement.