Hamilton v Al Fayed (No.4)
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Date | 2001 |
| Year | 2001 |
| Court | Court of Appeal (Civil Division) |
-
- This document is available in original version only for vLex customers
View this document and try vLex for 7 days - TRY VLEX
- This document is available in original version only for vLex customers
48 cases
-
Martin Raymond Owens v Mark Noble
...for retrial. That should be done, apparently even if the new evidence suggests that a deceit was practised on the court below: see Hamilton v Al Fayed. On the other hand, Jonesco suggests that, where it is alleged that there was deceit in the court below, the proper course is to leave the a......
-
William Andrew Tinkler v Esken Ltd (formerly Stobart Group Ltd)
...and came to its decision”. The judge ought to have applied the test adumbrated by Lord Phillips MR in Hamilton v. Al Fayed (No. 2) [2001] EMLR 15 ( Hamilton) at [26] and [34] to the effect that it had to be shown that there was a real danger that the dishonest conduct had affected the outco......
-
Martin Richard Walsh and Others (Claimants/Appellants) v Needleman Treon (A Firm)and Others (Defendant/Respondent to Appeal (Fourth Defendant only)
...52). The Ladd v Marshall criteria remain important ("powerful persuasive authority") but do not place the court in a straitjacket ( Hamilton v Al-Fayed (No 4) [2001] EMLR 15 per Lord Phillips MR as he then was at paragraph 11). The learning shows, in my judgment, that the Ladd v Marshall cr......
-
Bernadette Patricia McDaid v Nursing & Midwifery Council
...Rules: see Banks v. Cox [2000] LTL 17 July 2000; Hertfordshire Investments Ltd v. Bubb [2000] 1 WLR 2318 at 2325H; and Hamilton v. Al Fayed (No 4) [2001] EMLR 15, where Lord Phillips MR stated that the old cases "remain powerful persuasive authority". These old cases include the well-known ......
Request a trial to view additional results
2 firm's commentaries
-
Fraud On The Court: When Post-Trial Evidence Vitiates Judgment (Tinkler v Esken Ltd (Formerly Stobart Group Ltd) [2023] EWCA Civ 655)
...for Materiality The second ground of appeal was that the Judge had erred in law by preferring Highland [2013] EWCA Civ 328, over Hamilton [2001] EMLR 15 as the test for In Highland, Aikens LJ held that the fraud proven by the fresh evidence must be "an operative cause of the court's decisio......
-
Setting Aside A Judgment For Fraud: Applying The Three-limb Test
...test of (a) whether was a real danger that the deception had affected the outcome of the trial (as stated in Hamilton v Al Fayed (No. 2) [2001] EMLR 15), rather than (b) whether the alleged fraud was an operative cause of the court's decision, or the new evidence would have entirely changed......
1 books & journal articles
-
Civil Procedure
...based on fraud could choose either to commence a fresh action or apply for a retrial. Referring to the case of Hamilton v Al Fayed (No 2)[2001] EMLR 15, a fresh action is necessary where fresh evidence, introduced to impugn the judgment, was ‘hotly contested’. By ‘hotly contested’, the fres......