Sohal & Anor v Sohal & Anor [2002] EWCA Civ 1297 (30 July 2002)

Sohal & Anor v Sohal & Anor [2002] EWCA Civ 1297 (30 July 2002)

The Court of Appeal refused the application because the fresh evidence did not clearly establish that the judgment was procured by perjured evidence, and the alleged fraud would be hotly contested. Therefore, the proper course is for the applicants to bring a fresh action to set aside the judgment, not to proceed by way of appeal.

Citation
[2002] EWCA Civ 1297
Parties
Claimant/respondent: Baldev Singh Sohal; Claimant/respondent: Balbir Singh Sohal; Claimant/respondent: Dalbir Singh Sohal; Claimant/respondent: Jasbir Singh Sohal; Claimant/respondent: Sukhdev Singh Sohal; Defendant/applicant: Hardev Singh Sohal; Defendant/applicant: Manjit Kaur Sohal
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
30 July 2002
Procedural Posture
Probate Action (appeal) / Renewed Application for Permission to Appeal and Extension of Time
Outcome
Application refused
Legal Topics
Setting Aside Judgments for Fraud, Admission of Fresh Evidence on Appeal, Revocation of Probate, Validity of Wills
Civil Procedure Probate Wills and Estates Setting Aside Judgments for Fraud Admission of Fresh Evidence on Appeal Revocation of Probate Validity of Wills

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 2 Authorities cited 6 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Baldev Singh Sohal

Claimant/respondent

Balbir Singh Sohal

Claimant/respondent

Dalbir Singh Sohal

Claimant/respondent

Jasbir Singh Sohal

Claimant/respondent

Sukhdev Singh Sohal

Claimant/respondent

Hardev Singh Sohal

Defendant/applicant

Manjit Kaur Sohal

Defendant/applicant

Procedural Posture

Probate Action (appeal) / Renewed Application for Permission to Appeal and Extension of Time

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the judgment revoking probate of the English will and pronouncing for the Indian will should be set aside on the basis of alleged fraud/perjured evidence
  2. 2 Whether fresh evidence should be admitted on appeal to establish fraud
  3. 3 Whether the proper procedure is to appeal or to bring a fresh action alleging fraud

Ratio Decidendi

The Court of Appeal refused the application because the fresh evidence did not clearly establish that the judgment was procured by perjured evidence, and the alleged fraud would be hotly contested. Therefore, the proper course is for the applicants to bring a fresh action to set aside the judgment, not to proceed by way of appeal.

Court Disposition

Application refused

Orders

  • Application for permission to appeal and extension of time refused
  • No order as to costs