Bank of Scotland v Pereira & Ors

Bank of Scotland v Pereira & Ors

Ms Pereira's applications failed because she did not act promptly after learning of the judgment, had no good reason for not attending trial, and her evidence could have been adduced at trial. The refusal to set aside the order under CPR 39.3 was correct. There was no basis to extend time for appeal or to admit new evidence. The only arguable grounds arose from her absence, which had already been conclusively determined against her. The appeal and applications were dismissed.

Parties
Claimant: Bank of Scotland; 1st Defendant, Appellant: Juliana Pereira; 2nd Defendant, Respondent: Howard Pain; 3rd Defendant, Respondent: Linda Pain
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
09 March 2011
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Judgment on Appeal From County Court and Application for Permission to Appeal Out of Time
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; applications refused
Legal Topics
Setting Aside Judgment in Absence, Appeal Out of Time, Agency and Nominee Liability, Fraudulent Misrepresentation, Rescission of Contract, Damages Assessment
Civil Procedure Property Law Contract Law Setting Aside Judgment in Absence Appeal Out of Time Agency and Nominee Liability Fraudulent Misrepresentation Rescission of Contract +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 13 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Bank of Scotland

Claimant

Juliana Pereira

1st Defendant, Appellant

Howard Pain

2nd Defendant, Respondent

Linda Pain

3rd Defendant, Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Judgment on Appeal From County Court and Application for Permission to Appeal Out of Time

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the refusal to set aside judgment under CPR 39.3 was correct
  2. 2 Whether permission to appeal out of time should be granted
  3. 3 Whether the appellant had a reasonable prospect of success at retrial

Ratio Decidendi

Ms Pereira's applications failed because she did not act promptly after learning of the judgment, had no good reason for not attending trial, and her evidence could have been adduced at trial. The refusal to set aside the order under CPR 39.3 was correct. There was no basis to extend time for appeal or to admit new evidence. The only arguable grounds arose from her absence, which had already been conclusively determined against her. The appeal and applications were dismissed.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; applications refused

Orders

  • Appeal against Judge Ellis's refusal to set aside judgment dismissed
  • Application for extension of time to appeal against Judge Milligan's order refused