Dickinson & Ors v Tesco Plc & Ors [2013] EWCA Civ 36 (04 February 2013)

Dickinson & Ors v Tesco Plc & Ors [2013] EWCA Civ 36 (04 February 2013)

Permission to adduce fresh evidence was granted in all four cases due to the systemic dishonesty of Autofocus Limited's evidence, which could not have been fully uncovered with reasonable diligence at trial. Extensions of time for appeal were granted. Appeals allowed. Retrials ordered on quantum of hire charges, with directions for evidence to be determined by the retrial judge.

Citation
[2013] EWCA Civ 36
Parties
Applicant/appellant: Mr Gary Dickinson; Applicant/appellant: Mr Guy Simmonds; Applicant/appellant: Mr Martin Verley; Applicant/appellant: Mr Peter Moonsam; Respondent: Tesco Plc; Respondent: Stewart Alexander Group Ltd; Respondent: Mr Chris O'Neil; Respondent: Axa Corporate Solutions Assurances SA; Interested Party: Morgan Cole LLP
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
04 February 2013
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Court of Appeal Judgment
Outcome
Appeals allowed; permission to adduce fresh evidence granted; extensions of time granted; retrials ordered.
Legal Topics
Fraudulent Evidence, Abuse of Process, Damages Assessment, Fresh Evidence on Appeal, Credit Hire Claims, Expert Evidence, Extension of Time, Retrial
Civil Procedure Tort Insurance Fraudulent Evidence Abuse of Process Damages Assessment Fresh Evidence on Appeal Credit Hire Claims +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 8 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 10
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Mr Gary Dickinson

Applicant/appellant

Mr Guy Simmonds

Applicant/appellant

Mr Martin Verley

Applicant/appellant

Mr Peter Moonsam

Applicant/appellant

Tesco Plc

Respondent

Stewart Alexander Group Ltd

Respondent

Mr Chris O'Neil

Respondent

Axa Corporate Solutions Assurances SA

Respondent

Morgan Cole LLP

Interested Party

Procedural Posture

Appeal / Court of Appeal Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether permission should be granted to adduce fresh evidence on appeal
  2. 2 Whether extensions of time for appeal should be granted
  3. 3 Whether judgments based on fraudulent expert evidence should be set aside

Ratio Decidendi

Permission to adduce fresh evidence was granted in all four cases due to the systemic dishonesty of Autofocus Limited's evidence, which could not have been fully uncovered with reasonable diligence at trial. Extensions of time for appeal were granted. Appeals allowed. Retrials ordered on quantum of hire charges, with directions for evidence to be determined by the retrial judge.

Court Disposition

Appeals allowed; permission to adduce fresh evidence granted; extensions of time granted; retrials ordered.

Orders

  • Retrials on quantum of hire charges in all four cases.
  • Directions for evidence at retrials to be determined by retrial judge.