Carr v Conlon
Summary judgment is inappropriate where allegations of fraud or perjury are made; such matters require a full trial to allow the defendant to provide an explanation and for proper pleading of all relevant facts.
- Parties
- Claimant/appellant: Malcolm Carr; Defendant/respondent: Conlon; Defendants: Bower Cotton (BC) partners; Eighth Defendant: Paul Simms
- Jurisdiction
- England and Wales
- Judgment Date
- 11 October 2006
- Procedural Posture
- Civil Appeal / Application for Permission to Appeal (and Extension of Time) From High Court Order Refusing Summary Judgment
- Outcome
- application refused
- Legal Topics
- Summary Judgment, Perjury, Fiduciary Duty, Breach of Trust, Misrepresentation
Case Brief
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Malcolm Carr
Claimant/appellant
Conlon
Defendant/respondent
Bower Cotton (BC) partners
Defendants
Paul Simms
Eighth Defendant
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Application for Permission to Appeal (and Extension of Time) From High Court Order Refusing Summary Judgment
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether summary judgment should be granted on the basis of alleged perjury by the defendant in prior proceedings
- 2 Whether the orders of Blackburne J and the Court of Appeal in the earlier action should be set aside for alleged perjury
- 3 Whether the new evidence (NatWest schedule) justifies summary judgment
Ratio Decidendi
Summary judgment is inappropriate where allegations of fraud or perjury are made; such matters require a full trial to allow the defendant to provide an explanation and for proper pleading of all relevant facts.
Court Disposition
application refused
Orders
- Application for permission to appeal refused
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
Sign in to read
Sign in to read the full judgment text
Sign in to read the full judgment text. Downloads and additional research tools may depend on your plan.
Sign in to read the full judgment