The Estate of Euan Mcintyre Lindsay & Anor v Outlook Finance Limited & Anor

The Estate of Euan Mcintyre Lindsay & Anor v Outlook Finance Limited & Anor

The court held that the 2014 Manchester judgment was obtained by fraud perpetrated by Mr Fradgley of Outlook, that the fraud tainted the entire judgment, and that equity allows the judgment to be set aside not only against the fraudulent party (Outlook) but also against a non-fraudulent co-defendant (Mr Butcher) where it is fair and equitable to do so. The requirements for setting aside the judgment for fraud were met as against Outlook, and while Mr Butcher was not party to the fraud, the court found it was not inequitable to set aside the judgment against him given his role, the risks he assumed, and the absence of undue delay or abuse of process. A retrial was ordered against both...

Parties
Claimant: The Estate of Euan McIntyre Lindsay (deceased); Claimant: William Donald Lindsay (t/a DM Lindsay); Defendant: Outlook Finance Limited (in liquidation); Defendant: Roderick Graham Butcher
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
26 November 2025
Procedural Posture
Civil / Judgment on Application to Set Aside Previous Judgment for Fraud and for Retrial
Outcome
Judgment set aside as against both Outlook Finance Limited and Roderick Graham Butcher; retrial ordered.
Legal Topics
Setting Aside Judgment for Fraud, Equitable Remedies, Laches, Agency Liability, Trespass, Conversion
Civil Procedure Equity Fraud Setting Aside Judgment for Fraud Equitable Remedies Laches Agency Liability Trespass +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 6 Authorities cited 19 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

The Estate of Euan McIntyre Lindsay (deceased)

Claimant

William Donald Lindsay (t/a DM Lindsay)

Claimant

Outlook Finance Limited (in liquidation)

Defendant

Roderick Graham Butcher

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil / Judgment on Application to Set Aside Previous Judgment for Fraud and for Retrial

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the 2014 Manchester judgment should be set aside for fraud
  2. 2 Whether a judgment tainted by fraud can be set aside against a non-fraudulent co-defendant
  3. 3 Whether laches or abuse of process bars the claim for setting aside

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that the 2014 Manchester judgment was obtained by fraud perpetrated by Mr Fradgley of Outlook, that the fraud tainted the entire judgment, and that equity allows the judgment to be set aside not only against the fraudulent party (Outlook) but also against a non-fraudulent co-defendant (Mr Butcher) where it is fair and equitable to do so. The requirements for setting aside the judgment for fraud were met as against Outlook, and while Mr Butcher was not party to the fraud, the court found it was not inequitable to set aside the judgment against him given his role, the risks he assumed, and the absence of undue delay or abuse of process. A retrial was ordered against both...

Court Disposition

Judgment set aside as against both Outlook Finance Limited and Roderick Graham Butcher; retrial ordered.

Orders

  • The 2014 Manchester judgment and consequential orders are set aside as against Outlook and Mr Butcher.
  • A retrial of all matters not tried by HHJ Bird but pleaded by the claimants in the Manchester proceedings is ordered against Outlook and Mr Butcher.