WILLIAM ANDREW TINKLER v ESKEN LIMITED

WILLIAM ANDREW TINKLER v ESKEN LIMITED

The court found that the new evidence did not demonstrate conscious and deliberate dishonesty by Esken Ltd or its witnesses, nor was any non-disclosure or alleged perjury material to the original judgment. The threshold for setting aside a judgment for fraud was not met. The claim was dismissed.

Parties
Claimant: William Andrew Tinkler; Defendant: Esken Limited (formerly Stobart Group Limited)
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
07 June 2022
Procedural Posture
Civil Commercial/fraud / Judgment After Full Trial
Outcome
Claim dismissed. Judgment not set aside.
Legal Topics
Setting Aside Judgment for Fraud, Directors' Duties, Disclosure Obligations, Breach of Fiduciary Duty, Employment Termination, Perjury and Evidence, Remedies for Fraud
Civil Procedure Company Law Employment Law Setting Aside Judgment for Fraud Directors' Duties Disclosure Obligations Breach of Fiduciary Duty Employment Termination +2 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 12 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

William Andrew Tinkler

Claimant

Esken Limited (formerly Stobart Group Limited)

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Commercial/fraud / Judgment After Full Trial

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the 2019 judgment in favour of Esken Ltd should be set aside for fraud allegedly committed by witnesses for Esken Ltd, including deliberate non-disclosure and perjury.
  2. 2 Whether the conduct of Esken Ltd's directors and witnesses amounted to conscious and deliberate dishonesty material to the original decision.
  3. 3 Whether new evidence not available at the original trial demonstrates that the judgment was obtained by fraud.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the new evidence did not demonstrate conscious and deliberate dishonesty by Esken Ltd or its witnesses, nor was any non-disclosure or alleged perjury material to the original judgment. The threshold for setting aside a judgment for fraud was not met. The claim was dismissed.

Court Disposition

Claim dismissed. Judgment not set aside.

Orders

  • Mr Tinkler's claim to set aside the 2019 judgment for fraud is dismissed.
  • Claim for restitution of sums paid under the Tomlin order and for repayment of costs is dismissed.