Dickinson & Ors v Tesco Plc & Ors

Dickinson & Ors v Tesco Plc & Ors

Fresh evidence demonstrating systemic fraud by Autofocus Limited is admissible on appeal because it could not reasonably have been obtained at trial, would have had an important influence on the outcome, and is credible. The original judgments on quantum of damages for credit hire were unsafe due to reliance on tainted evidence. Appeals are allowed, retrials ordered, and parties may adduce evidence at retrial.

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
Civil Appeal / Judgment on Appeal and Applications for Permission to Appeal, Extension of Time, and Admission of Fresh Evidence
Outcome
Appeals allowed; retrials ordered on quantum of car hire recoverable.
Legal Topics
Fraudulent Evidence, Abuse of Process, Damages Assessment, Credit Hire, Fresh Evidence on Appeal, Extension of Time, Retrial Orders
Civil Procedure Tort Fraudulent Evidence Abuse of Process Damages Assessment Credit Hire Fresh Evidence on Appeal Extension of Time +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 5 Authorities cited 11 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 11
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

Civil Appeal / Judgment on Appeal and Applications for Permission to Appeal, Extension of Time, and Admission of Fresh Evidence

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether fresh evidence of systemic fraud by Autofocus Limited should be admitted on appeal
  2. 2 Whether extensions of time for appeal should be granted
  3. 3 Whether permission to appeal should be granted

Ratio Decidendi

Fresh evidence demonstrating systemic fraud by Autofocus Limited is admissible on appeal because it could not reasonably have been obtained at trial, would have had an important influence on the outcome, and is credible. The original judgments on quantum of damages for credit hire were unsafe due to reliance on tainted evidence. Appeals are allowed, retrials ordered, and parties may adduce evidence at retrial.

Court Disposition

Appeals allowed; retrials ordered on quantum of car hire recoverable.

Orders

  • Admission of fresh evidence (witness statements of Mr Lee and Mr Evans plus exhibits) in Simmonds, Verley, Moonsam.
  • Extension of time and permission to appeal granted in Simmonds and Verley.