Sohal v Sohal: CA 30 Jul 2002

It was alleged that a verdict upholding a will had been obtained by fraud. Permission was sought to appeal.
Held: It is possible to seek to establish that a judgment was obtained by fraud by adducing fresh evidence on an appeal: ‘There is no jurisdictional bar to this court admitting the fresh evidence and dealing with the allegation by way of an appeal. But it should only do so if, in the words of Lord Woolf in Wood v Gahlings, the allegation of fraud ‘can be clearly established’ or if, in the words of Lord Phillips (which come to the same thing) the fresh evidence or its effect is not ‘hotly contested’. In any other case, the party who complains about the judgment should be left to bring a fresh action to set it aside.’ As to Hamilton, ‘Those observations must be accorded every respect. I do not think that they can have been intended to depart from what was said in paragraphs 8 and 14. Whether that be right or wrong, it is clear that each case must be judged on its own merits. If this court takes the view that the fraud has not been clearly established, or that it is or certainly will be hotly contested on the evidence, then it must be open to it to say that the question will not be dealt with by way of appeal, but must be dealt with as the subject of a fresh action.’


Sir Martin Nourse


[2002] EWCA Civ 1297




England and Wales


ConsideredHamilton v Al Fayed (2) CA 13-Oct-2000
A third party who financially supported a court action had no right to be joined as a party even at hearings at which decisions would be made which might affect his potential liabilities. Those who financially support proceedings must acknowledge . .

Cited by:

CitedCouwenbergh 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 . .
CitedCouwenbergh v Valkova CA 28-Jan-2005
The will was challenged as to its due execution. Statements had been produced that the two witnesses had not been present when the will was signed, but those witnesses now said that they and not signed the statements.
Held: The evidence met . .
CitedOwens 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 . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Litigation Practice, Wills and Probate

Updated: 07 September 2022; Ref: scu.197975