Search judgments by proposition, citation, court, judge or legal topic, then move directly into the source-grounded case analysis.
Results update automatically as you type.
England and Wales decisions
Decisions matching the current search
Rashed v Deane [2025] EWHC 3201 (KB) (05 December 2025)
The High Court held that a final judgment allegedly procured by fraud must be challenged by a fresh claim, not by application in the same proceedings.
The High Court has no jurisdiction to set aside a final judgment for alleged fraud within the same proceedings under CPR 3.1(7) or its inherent jurisdiction; the correct procedure is to bring a fresh claim for fraud.
Source excerpt
Mr Thomas should not be debarred from participating in the Enforceability Hearing as his conduct, while unsatisfactory regarding disclosure of Dr Smith's involvement and late payment of costs orders, does not sufficiently impede the fairness of proceedings or amount to abuse of process. However, due to breaches and risk to costs recovery, he must provide security for costs in the sum of £200,000 to participate in his cross-application.
Source excerpt
Griffin v Kleyman & Co Solicitors Ltd [2024] EWHC 3213 (SCCO) (10 December 2024)
The High Court dismissed a post-judgment application in a solicitor-client costs assessment, refusing to reopen findings about when a bill was delivered.
Wei & Anor v Jinhong [2024] EWHC 3151 (Comm) (22 November 2024)
The High Court dismissed a challenge to service out in a claim to enforce a Chinese money judgment, holding that finality and forum objections did not defeat the claim.
The court dismissed a post-judgment application in a solicitor-client costs assessment, refusing to reopen a dispute over when a bill was delivered.
XY v XX [2024] EWFC 387 (B) (08 November 2024)
The court refused to set aside a financial remedies order. The husband’s CGT mistake argument failed because the omission was his own fault and he had not raised it at trial.
The application to set aside the November 2015 Order is dismissed because the order was final as against BCP, there was no material misstatement or change of circumstances justifying setting aside under CPR 3.1(7), and no evidence of fraud or causative dishonesty by Sheikha Hind. The change in estate representation does not affect the merits of the claim against BCP or provide grounds to set aside the order.
Source excerpt
The High Court lacks jurisdiction to reopen or vary a final sealed order under the Barrell jurisdiction or CPR 3.1(7) after an inter partes appeal; the application is an abuse of process and contrary to the principle of finality.
Source excerpt
The claim is struck out and/or summary judgment granted because the Particulars of Claim disclose no reasonable grounds and no real prospect of success; the claim constitutes an abuse of process as a collateral attack on previous judgments, is inadequately pleaded, and is barred against the Second Defendant by a prior full and final settlement.
Source excerpt
Explore more
