The parties had settled their action, but the claimant now wished to assert that the compromise was based on a concealed fraud. The defendant argued that the agreement precluded re-opening the case.
Held: It was only by the clearest of words that an agreement could exclude a right to challenge it for fraud or dishonesty. The dedendant’s appeal was dismissed. The terms of an original agreement can survive a comprehensive settlement, particularly where it is preserved by the settlement agreement.
Judges:
Lawrence Collins LJ, Waller LJ, Rimer LJ
Citations:
[2008] EWCA Civ 487, Times 27-May-2008, [2008] 2 All E.R. (Comm) 465
Links:
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Citing:
Appeal from – Satyam Computer Services Ltd v Upaid Systems Ltd ComC 17-Jan-2008
. .
Cited by:
Cited – Cavell USA, Inc and Randall v Seaton Insurance Company etc CA 16-Dec-2009
The parties had settled terms for concluding business arrangements between them. The agreement released and referred all claims in law and in equity ‘save for fraud’ to the UK courts. The respondents now wanted to bring a case alleging breach of a . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Contract
Updated: 14 July 2022; Ref: scu.267571
