Century Financial Holdings Ltd & Anor v Jamtoff Trading Ltd & Ors [2018] EWHC 3135 (Comm) (30 October 2018)

Century Financial Holdings Ltd & Anor v Jamtoff Trading Ltd & Ors [2018] EWHC 3135 (Comm) (30 October 2018)

The applications to strike out succeed because neither the fraud set aside claim nor the delivery up/conversion claim disclose reasonable grounds for bringing a claim. The alleged new evidence does not undermine the original judgment of joint and several liability for fraudulent misrepresentation, and the delivery...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2018] EWHC 3135 (Comm)
Parties
Claimant: Century Financial Holdings Limited; Claimant: Sanjay Thakrar; Defendant: Jamtoff Trading Limited; Defendant: Paresh Thakkar
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
30 October 2018
Procedural Posture
Commercial Claim / Applications to Strike Out / High Court, Post Judgment Applications to Strike Out Claims Under CPR 3.4
Outcome
Applications to strike out both the fraud set aside claim and the delivery up/conversion claim are granted.
Legal Topics
Fraudulent Misrepresentation, Setting Aside Judgments for Fraud, Conversion, Strike Out Applications, Res Judicata, Letters of Credit
Commercial Law Civil Procedure Fraudulent Misrepresentation Setting Aside Judgments for Fraud Conversion Strike Out Applications Res Judicata Letters of Credit

Source-derived case record

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 9 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Century Financial Holdings Limited

Claimant

Sanjay Thakrar

Claimant

Jamtoff Trading Limited

Defendant

Paresh Thakkar

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Commercial Claim / Applications to Strike Out / High Court, Post Judgment Applications to Strike Out Claims Under CPR 3.4

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the claim to set aside a judgment for fraud discloses reasonable grounds under CPR 3.4
  2. 2 Whether the delivery up/conversion claim discloses reasonable grounds under CPR 3.4
  3. 3 Whether new evidence undermines the original judgment for fraudulent misrepresentation

Ratio Decidendi

The applications to strike out succeed because neither the fraud set aside claim nor the delivery up/conversion claim disclose reasonable grounds for bringing a claim. The alleged new evidence does not undermine the original judgment of joint and several liability for fraudulent misrepresentation, and the delivery up/conversion claim is legally misconceived and barred by res judicata.

Court Disposition

Applications to strike out both the fraud set aside claim and the delivery up/conversion claim are granted.

Orders

  • Fraud set aside claim struck out under CPR 3.4 for disclosing no reasonable grounds and as an abuse of process.
  • Delivery up/conversion claim struck out under CPR 3.4 for disclosing no reasonable grounds.