Takhar v Gracefield Developments Ltd & Ors [2020] EWHC 2791 (Ch) (23 October 2020)

Takhar v Gracefield Developments Ltd & Ors [2020] EWHC 2791 (Ch) (23 October 2020)

The Claimant's signature on the Profit Sharing Agreement was forged by transposition from the Whiston letter; the Defendants had motive and opportunity and are responsible for the forgery. The forged document was material to the outcome of the original trial as it was an operative cause of the judgment. The correct test for materiality is that set out by Aikens LJ in RBS v Highland, as approved by the Supreme Court in Takhar. The original judgment must be set aside.

Citation
[2020] EWHC 2791 (Ch)
Parties
Claimant: Balber Kaur Takhar; First Defendant: Gracefield Developments Limited; Second Defendant: Dr Kewal Singh Krishan; Third Defendant: Mrs Parkash Krishan
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
23 October 2020
Procedural Posture
Civil / Trial Judgment on Action to Set Aside Previous Judgment for Fraud
Outcome
Judgment set aside
Legal Topics
Setting Aside Judgment for Fraud, Materiality Test for Fraud, Forgery of Documents, Agency Liability for Fraud
Civil Procedure Fraud Property Law Setting Aside Judgment for Fraud Materiality Test for Fraud Forgery of Documents Agency Liability for Fraud

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 10 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Balber Kaur Takhar

Claimant

Gracefield Developments Limited

First Defendant

Dr Kewal Singh Krishan

Second Defendant

Mrs Parkash Krishan

Third Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil / Trial Judgment on Action to Set Aside Previous Judgment for Fraud

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Was the Claimant's signature on the Profit Sharing Agreement and/or ISV documents forged?
  2. 2 Are the Defendants responsible for the forgery?
  3. 3 What is the correct test for materiality in setting aside a judgment for fraud?

Ratio Decidendi

The Claimant's signature on the Profit Sharing Agreement was forged by transposition from the Whiston letter; the Defendants had motive and opportunity and are responsible for the forgery. The forged document was material to the outcome of the original trial as it was an operative cause of the judgment. The correct test for materiality is that set out by Aikens LJ in RBS v Highland, as approved by the Supreme Court in Takhar. The original judgment must be set aside.

Court Disposition

Judgment set aside

Orders

  • The judgment and order of HHJ Purle QC dated 28 July 2010 are set aside.
  • A fresh trial is to be held on the merits of the original claim.