Terry v BCS Corporate Acceptances Ltd & Ors [2018] EWCA Civ 2422 (02 November 2018)

Terry v BCS Corporate Acceptances Ltd & Ors [2018] EWCA Civ 2422 (02 November 2018)

The court has no jurisdiction to strike out a claim after final judgment for alleged fraud under CPR 3.4 or its inherent jurisdiction. The proper procedures for challenging a judgment allegedly obtained by fraud are by fresh action or appeal, not by application to strike out or under CPR 3.1(7). CPR 3.1(7) does not apply to final judgments in ordinary civil proceedings. The judge was correct to dismiss the application and was not obliged to give directions for the trial of the fraud issue.

Citation
[2018] EWCA Civ 2422
Parties
Appellant: Daniel Terry; Respondent: BCS Corporate Acceptances Limited; Respondent: BCS Offshore Funding Limited; Respondent: John Taylor
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
02 November 2018
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Court of Appeal Judgment
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Setting Aside Judgments, Abuse of Process, Default Judgment, Case Management Powers, Jurisdiction, Finality of Judgments
Civil Procedure Fraud Setting Aside Judgments Abuse of Process Default Judgment Case Management Powers Jurisdiction Finality of Judgments

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 5 Authorities cited 28 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Daniel Terry

Appellant

BCS Corporate Acceptances Limited

Respondent

BCS Offshore Funding Limited

Respondent

John Taylor

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Appeal / Court of Appeal Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the court has jurisdiction to strike out a claim after final judgment for alleged fraud
  2. 2 Whether an application to set aside judgment can be made under CPR 1 and 3, particularly CPR 3.1(7)
  3. 3 Whether the judge should have made directions to progress the matter rather than dismissing the applications

Ratio Decidendi

The court has no jurisdiction to strike out a claim after final judgment for alleged fraud under CPR 3.4 or its inherent jurisdiction. The proper procedures for challenging a judgment allegedly obtained by fraud are by fresh action or appeal, not by application to strike out or under CPR 3.1(7). CPR 3.1(7) does not apply to final judgments in ordinary civil proceedings. The judge was correct to dismiss the application and was not obliged to give directions for the trial of the fraud issue.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • No jurisdiction to strike out claim after final judgment
  • No grounds to set aside judgment under CPR 3.1(7)