The claimant sought to allege fraud by its former president, and began proceedings to recover payments it said were fraudulent, including against a defendant Taylor in Switzerland, who now said that no letter before action or other explanation beyond the pleadings had been given before proceedings began as required under the protocol, nor had any translation been provided to him as a French speaker. He now appealed judgment in default, and applied to bring evidence.
Held: The reasons given for non-attendance were capable of belief. Moreover other correspondence after proceedings were commenced referred to a much lesser sum than that for which judgment was entered. Judgment was set aside.
Judges:
LLoyd LJ
Citations:
[2008] EWCA Civ 754
Links:
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – Ladd v Marshall CA 29-Nov-1954
Conditions for new evidence on appeal
At the trial, the wife of the appellant’s opponent said she had forgotten certain events. After the trial she began divorce proceedings, and informed the appellant that she now remembered. He sought either to appeal admitting fresh evidence, or for . .
Cited – Re Edwards’ Will Trusts CA 1982
Proceedings came to trial but the Defendant only had extremely short notice of the hearing, and did not attend. Under RSC Order 35 rule 2 there was a seven day time limit for the application. Instead of applying under the rule, the Defendant . .
Cited – Tennero Ltd v Arnold QBD 6-Jul-2006
The court considered an application for permission to appeal. The Defendant had not attended the trial, but had applied by letter for an adjournment, which was refused. The trial proceeded and resulted in an order against the Defendant. He applied . .
Cited – David v Charlemagne CA 1996
The rule in Ladd v Marshall did not apply on an appeal from the refusal of an application to set aside a default judgment, the additional evidence being sought to be introduced only on appeal, not on the original application, because there had been . .
Cited – Estate Acquisition and Development Ltd v Wiltshire and Another CA 4-May-2006
The defendants appealed a decision that they had no sufficient reason for not attending court on the day of the trial.
Held: The fact that the defendants had a continuing commercial relationship with the claimants was not enough to justify an . .
Cited – Brazil v Brazil CA 31-Jul-2002
The defendant appealed against an order for rectification of the registered title to land he occupied, and for which he had had a possessory title. The order had been made in his absence.
Held: A ‘good reason’ for non attendance at a hearing . .
See Also – Zambia, Attorney General of Zambia for and on Behalf of v Meer Care and Desai (A Firm) and others ChD 7-Oct-2005
Reasons for dismissal of stay for certain defendants. . .
See Also – Zambia v Meer Care and Desai (A Firm) and others CA 7-Mar-2006
The appellant sought a stay of the action brought against them. The cliamants sought the return of goernment funds said to have been misappropriated. . .
See Also – Zambia, Attorney General v Meer Care and Desai (A Firm) and others ChD 22-May-2006
. .
See Also – Zambia v Meer Care and Desai (A Firm) and others ChD 4-May-2007
. .
See Also – Zambia v Meer Care and Desai (A Firm) and others ChD 4-May-2007
. .
See Also – Zambia v Meer Care and Desai (A Firm) and others (No. 2) ChD 29-Jun-2007
. .
See Also – Zambia v Meer Care and others (1415) CA 17-Dec-2007
. .
See Also – Zambia v Meer Care and others (1414) CA 17-Dec-2007
Two applications for permission to appeal . .
Cited by:
See Also – Attorney General of Zambia v Meer Care and Desai (A Firm) and others CA 31-Jul-2008
The defendants appealed against two orders made in proceedings by the new government of Zambia alleging various tortious conspiracies by defendants with members of the former government.
Held: Appeals by the remaining two partners in the firm . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Litigation Practice
Updated: 17 July 2022; Ref: scu.270584