Garnham v Millar & Ors [2014] EWCA Civ 1168 (22 July 2014)

Garnham v Millar & Ors [2014] EWCA Civ 1168 (22 July 2014)

The appellant failed to show a real prospect of success in setting aside the Tomlin order. The alleged non-disclosure and forgery of the recording did not causatively affect the settlement, which was entered into freely with legal advice. The claims were an attempt to re-litigate settled matters, and the evidence did not support the allegations of fraud or misrepresentation.

Citation
[2014] EWCA Civ 1168
Parties
Appellant: Joseph Charles Garnham; Respondent: Millar & Ors
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
22 July 2014
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Renewed Oral Application for Permission to Appeal
Outcome
renewed oral application for permission to appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Summary Judgment, Fraudulent Misrepresentation, Undue Influence, Finality of Settlements, Tomlin Order, Non Disclosure, Re Litigation, Civil Restraint Order
Civil Procedure Contract Law Equity Summary Judgment Fraudulent Misrepresentation Undue Influence Finality of Settlements Tomlin Order +3 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 1 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 9
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Joseph Charles Garnham

Appellant

Millar & Ors

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Renewed Oral Application for Permission to Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Tomlin order should be set aside for fraudulent misrepresentation and non-disclosure
  2. 2 Whether summary judgment for the defendants was appropriate
  3. 3 Whether alleged non-disclosure or forgery of a recording vitiated the settlement

Ratio Decidendi

The appellant failed to show a real prospect of success in setting aside the Tomlin order. The alleged non-disclosure and forgery of the recording did not causatively affect the settlement, which was entered into freely with legal advice. The claims were an attempt to re-litigate settled matters, and the evidence did not support the allegations of fraud or misrepresentation.

Court Disposition

renewed oral application for permission to appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Permission to appeal refused
  • Application for stay of order refused