In its principal judgment the court referred the case back to the judge to assess whether one or more of the parties had committed a fraud on the court. The court now explained its answer to submissions made on the draft judgment.
Held: It was not wrong to remit the case to the same judge: ‘the judge will decide the issue of fraud on the evidence which is put before him. He will of course have to compare that with the evidence given at the original hearing. He will be in a far better position to make that comparison than any other judge as his memory will be refreshed by re-reading the reports and reading the transcripts; no other judge has any memory to rely on. Moreover, the judge was conspicuously fair at the first hearing; neither party sought to criticise his judgment in any way.’
Judges:
Sedley, Smith, Elias LJJ
Citations:
[2010] EWCA Civ 284, [2010] WLR (D) 73
Links:
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Citing:
Main Judgment – 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 by:
Cited – Dickinson and Others v Tesco Plc and Others CA 4-Feb-2013
The court considered the practice on claims for hire of a replacement car on credit terms after a road traffic accident. The defendant resisted paying for the credit where the claimant could have hired without a credit arrangement. The defendants . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Litigation Practice
Updated: 15 August 2022; Ref: scu.403356