Coghlan v Bailey & Anor [2015] EWCA Civ 863 (02 July 2015)

Coghlan v Bailey & Anor [2015] EWCA Civ 863 (02 July 2015)

The alleged misrepresentation regarding the source of the deposit was not material to the outcome of the original trial, as the judge's findings were based on a range of factors and the revelation of the deposit's true source would not have changed the result. There was no realistic prospect of establishing that the judgment was obtained by fraud, and thus no basis for setting aside the order or granting permission to appeal.

Citation
[2015] EWCA Civ 863
Parties
Claimant/applicant: Arran Charlton Coghlan; Defendant/respondent: Daniel Bailey; Defendant/respondent: The National Crime Agency
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
02 July 2015
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Renewed Application for Permission to Appeal (court of Appeal)
Outcome
Permission to appeal refused
Legal Topics
Setting Aside Judgment for Fraud, Materiality of Misrepresentation, Civil Recovery Proceedings, Proceeds of Crime Act 2002, Appeal Procedure
Civil Procedure Fraud Proceeds of Crime Setting Aside Judgment for Fraud Materiality of Misrepresentation Civil Recovery Proceedings Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 Appeal Procedure

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 3 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 8
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Arran Charlton Coghlan

Claimant/applicant

Daniel Bailey

Defendant/respondent

The National Crime Agency

Defendant/respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Renewed Application for Permission to Appeal (court of Appeal)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the alleged fraudulent misrepresentation as to the source of the deposit was sufficiently material to have affected the outcome of the original trial
  2. 2 Whether the judgment of Simon J was obtained by fraud
  3. 3 Whether there was a compelling reason for a trial on the alleged fraud

Ratio Decidendi

The alleged misrepresentation regarding the source of the deposit was not material to the outcome of the original trial, as the judge's findings were based on a range of factors and the revelation of the deposit's true source would not have changed the result. There was no realistic prospect of establishing that the judgment was obtained by fraud, and thus no basis for setting aside the order or granting permission to appeal.

Court Disposition

Permission to appeal refused