There is no more scope for corporate dishonesty in deceit than in misfeasance, other than by the attribution to a corporate body of the dishonesty of an individual. It was alleged that there was unfairness through inequality of representation: ‘In our judgment, those principles are not directly applicable to the question whether a trial was fair, but they are of assistance. They are not directly applicable because the question is not whether there was a real possibility or real danger that the trial was unfair, but whether it was unfair. We can see no reason why this court (or any court of review) should not be able to judge whether or not the trial was in fact unfair, once it has considered all the relevant circumstances.
The principles are, however, of assistance because they stress that the question must be viewed through the eyes of the reasonable observer or litigant. The same principle seems to us to apply here. Thus the question is not whether a disappointed litigant thinks the trial was unfair, but whether a reasonable person in his or her position would think so, having regard to all the circumstances of the case. The circumstances are of importance because, before concluding that a trial is unfair, the court must consider all the relevant circumstances. As appears below, this is in our opinion important on the facts of the case.’
Judges:
Lord Justice Clarke
Citations:
[2002] EWCA Civ 1101
Links:
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Cited by:
Cited – Thomas-Everard and Others v Society of Lloyd’s ChD 18-Jul-2003
The claimant appealed refusal to set aside a statutory demand made by the respondent society. The proposed defence had been already been dismissed by the courts.
Held: Such a consideration was very relevant, but not necessarily determinative. . .
Cited – Chagos Islanders v The Attorney General, Her Majesty’s British Indian Ocean Territory Commissioner QBD 9-Oct-2003
The Chagos Islands had been a British dependent territory since 1814. The British government repatriated the islanders in the 1960s, and the Ilois now sought damages for their wrongful displacement, misfeasance, deceit, negligence and to establish a . .
Cited – Cairnstores Ltd Generics (UK) Ltd and Another v Aktiebolaget Hassle CA 22-Oct-2002
Two patents had been invaildated for obviousness. They related to coatings on medicinal pills. The patent holder said the judge’s interruptions indicated bias.
Held: The sumissions were unjustified. The interventions were by no means . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Company, Torts – Other
Updated: 06 June 2022; Ref: scu.174354