Collins v Union Bank Of Switzerland & Ors [2000] EWCA Civ 176 (25 May 2000)

There is no real prospect of establishing at trial that claimants relied on the UBS reference or that Hunold acted fraudulently; contemporaneous documents make it clear RTG was not the source of the loan; fresh evidence from Tristram could have been obtained earlier and would not affect outcome; limitation period bars fraud claim.

Citation: [2000] EWCA Civ 176
Parties: Claimants: Collins and Etridge; First Defendant: Union Bank of Switzerland (UBS); Second Defendant: Barclays Bank; Third Defendant: Mr Caplan
Jurisdiction: England and Wales
Judgment Date: 25 May 2000
Procedural Posture: Application for Permission to Appeal / Court of Appeal, Post Summary Judgment
Outcome: application dismissed
Legal Topics: Summary Judgment, Fraud, Misrepresentation, Reliance, Limitation Period

Civil Procedure Tort Summary Judgment Fraud Misrepresentation Reliance Limitation Period

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 3 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5

Parties

Collins and Etridge

Claimants

Union Bank of Switzerland (UBS)

First Defendant

Barclays Bank

Second Defendant

Mr Caplan

Third Defendant

Procedural Posture

Application for Permission to Appeal / Court of Appeal, Post Summary Judgment

Legal Issues

1 Whether claimants relied on UBS reference in rejecting Paramount offer
2 Whether UBS or its employee Hunold acted fraudulently or negligently
3 Whether fresh evidence should be admitted

Ratio Decidendi

Court Disposition

application dismissed

Orders

Applications dismissed
Minute of order to be lodged with the court