Takhar v Gracefield Developments Ltd & Ors [2017] EWCA Civ 147 (21 March 2017)

Takhar v Gracefield Developments Ltd & Ors [2017] EWCA Civ 147 (21 March 2017)

The Court of Appeal held that, as a matter of English law, a party seeking to set aside a judgment for fraud must show that the evidence of fraud could not with reasonable diligence have been discovered and produced at the original trial. The due diligence requirement applies to actions to set aside judgments for fraud, not just to appeals. Accordingly, Mrs Takhar's action cannot proceed unless she can satisfy this condition. The appeal was allowed and the case remitted to the High Court to determine whether Mrs Takhar could meet the due diligence requirement.

Citation
[2017] EWCA Civ 147
Parties
Claimant/respondent: Balber Kaur Takhar; Defendant/appellant: Gracefield Developments Limited; Defendant/appellant: Dr Kewal Singh Krishan; Defendant/appellant: Mrs Parkash Kaur Krishan
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
21 March 2017
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Interlocutory Appeal From Refusal to Strike Out Claim as Abuse of Process
Outcome
Appeal allowed
Legal Topics
Setting Aside Judgments for Fraud, Abuse of Process, Res Judicata, Fresh Evidence, Undue Influence, Forgery
Civil Procedure Property Law Equity Setting Aside Judgments for Fraud Abuse of Process Res Judicata Fresh Evidence Undue Influence +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 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Balber Kaur Takhar

Claimant/respondent

Gracefield Developments Limited

Defendant/appellant

Dr Kewal Singh Krishan

Defendant/appellant

Mrs Parkash Kaur Krishan

Defendant/appellant

Procedural Posture

Appeal / Interlocutory Appeal From Refusal to Strike Out Claim as Abuse of Process

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether a party seeking to set aside a judgment for fraud must show that the evidence of fraud could not have been discovered with reasonable diligence at the time of the original trial
  2. 2 Whether the 2013 action by Mrs Takhar to set aside the 2008 judgment is an abuse of process

Ratio Decidendi

The Court of Appeal held that, as a matter of English law, a party seeking to set aside a judgment for fraud must show that the evidence of fraud could not with reasonable diligence have been discovered and produced at the original trial. The due diligence requirement applies to actions to set aside judgments for fraud, not just to appeals. Accordingly, Mrs Takhar's action cannot proceed unless she can satisfy this condition. The appeal was allowed and the case remitted to the High Court to determine whether Mrs Takhar could meet the due diligence requirement.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed

Orders

  • Order of Newey J set aside
  • Case remitted to the High Court to determine if the due diligence requirement is satisfied