An appellate Court has inherent power to set aside a judgment obtained through fraud. Lord Buckmaster described how an appellate court should deal with an allegation that an earlier judgment had been obtained by fraud: ‘Where a new trial is sought upon the ground of fraud, procedure by motion and affidavit is not the most satisfactory and convenient method of determining the dispute. The fraud must be both alleged and proved; and the better course in such a case is to take independent proceedings to set aside the judgment upon the ground of fraud, when the whole issue can be properly defined, fought out, and determined, the motion for a new trial is also an available weapon and in some cases may be more convenient.’ and
‘It is a charge of fraud that is the sole reason supporting the judgment now under appeal. Viewed simply as a matter of procedure, the course taken was irregular. It has long been a settled practice of the court that the proper method of impeaching a completed judgment on the ground of fraud is by action in which, as in any other action based on fraud, the particulars of the fraud must be exactly given and the allegation established by the strict proof such a charge requires.’ and
‘A judgment that is tainted and affected by fraudulent conduct is tainted throughout, and the whole must fail.’
Lord Buckmaster, Viscount Dunedin, Blanesburgh, Warrington of Clyffe, and Tomlin LL
 AC 888,  UKPC 65
England and Wales
Cited – Couwenbergh v Valkova CA 27-May-2004
The deceased’s family lived in Europe. The defendant had moved in as tenant and had become confidante and friend over many years. A will had been prepared leaving everything to the defendant. That will had been challenged alleging incorrect . .
Cited – Owens v Noble CA 10-Mar-2010
The respondent had been awarded substantial damages after an accident for which the appellant was responsible. The appellant now said that the claimant had exaggerated his injuries and misled the judge. The defendant argued that the correct approach . .
Cited – Takhar v Gracefield Developments Ltd and Others SC 20-Mar-2019
The claimant appellant alleged that properties she owned were transferred to the first defendant under undue influence or other unconscionable conduct by the second and third defendants. The claim was dismissed. Three years later she claimed to set . .
Cited – McDonald v McDonald 13-Aug-1965
HCA – Appeal – New Trial – Fresh evidence – Tending to prove verdict obtained by fraud – Principles of grant of new trial on grounds of fraud and discovery of fresh evidence.
the High Court of Australia applied Hip Foong Hong and Jonesco v . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 21 January 2022; Ref: scu.197972