Bhandal v Revenue and Customs & Anor [2025] EWHC 1511 (Ch) (18 June 2025)

Bhandal v Revenue and Customs & Anor [2025] EWHC 1511 (Ch) (18 June 2025)

The claimant failed to prove, on the evidence, that the warrant of arrest dated 18 July 2001 was a forgery or that the information was not laid before the magistrates' court. The court found that the evidence supported the defendants' case that the warrant was issued as claimed. The claimant's allegations of fraud were not established to the requisite standard. Further, even if fraud had been established, it was not material to the outcome of the prior proceedings, as the existence or otherwise of the warrant did not affect the decisions made. The proceedings were also found to be an abuse of process, as the claimant had previously pursued statutory compensation on the basis of the...

Citation
[2025] EWHC 1511 (Ch)
Parties
Claimant: Baljit Singh Bhandal; First Defendant: His Majesty's Revenue & Customs; Second Defendant: Stephen Frederick Broad
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
18 June 2025
Procedural Posture
Civil Fraud/set Aside Judgment / Final Judgment After Trial
Outcome
Claim dismissed
Legal Topics
Setting Aside Judgments for Fraud, Abuse of Process, Forgery, Statutory Compensation, Restraint Orders, Criminal Procedure
Civil Procedure Fraud Public Law Setting Aside Judgments for Fraud Abuse of Process Forgery Statutory Compensation Restraint Orders +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 3 Authorities cited 7 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Baljit Singh Bhandal

Claimant

His Majesty's Revenue & Customs

First Defendant

Stephen Frederick Broad

Second Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Fraud/set Aside Judgment / Final Judgment After Trial

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the warrant of arrest issued on 18 July 2001 was a forgery
  2. 2 Whether judgments/orders in prior proceedings were procured by fraud
  3. 3 Whether the proceedings are an abuse of process

Ratio Decidendi

The claimant failed to prove, on the evidence, that the warrant of arrest dated 18 July 2001 was a forgery or that the information was not laid before the magistrates' court. The court found that the evidence supported the defendants' case that the warrant was issued as claimed. The claimant's allegations of fraud were not established to the requisite standard. Further, even if fraud had been established, it was not material to the outcome of the prior proceedings, as the existence or otherwise of the warrant did not affect the decisions made. The proceedings were also found to be an abuse of process, as the claimant had previously pursued statutory compensation on the basis of the...

Court Disposition

Claim dismissed

Orders

  • All claims by the claimant are dismissed.
  • No orders setting aside previous judgments or orders.