The court was asked whether a jury trial was appropriate under the 1920 Act.
Held: Avery J said: ‘It cannot be sufficient to bring a case within those words of the proviso that a plaintiff should merely allege in his particulars that the defendant has acted fraudulently. Suppose an action is brought for the price of goods sold and delivered. The only issue is whether the goods have been paid for or not. It cannot be sufficient for the plaintiff in such an action to allege that the defendant is a fraudulent person to entitle him to obtain trial by jury under this proviso. The words in question in the proviso refer to a case where a relevant issue of fraud is raised. No such relevant issue is raised in this action.’
Judges:
Avery J
Citations:
[1923] 1 KB 45 T
Statutes:
Administration of Justice Act 1920 2(1)
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Cited by:
Cited – Parsons, Parsons v Provincial Insurance Plc CA 20-Feb-1998
The insurers refused to pay on a fire claim, saying that it was started by the insured, that the proposal was incorrect, and that in extending the value insured, the insured had misrepresented the situation. The court considered whether a jury trial . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Litigation Practice
Updated: 28 July 2022; Ref: scu.375999