Hamilton v Al Fayed (No.4)

JurisdictionEngland & Wales
Date2001
Year2001
CourtCourt of Appeal (Civil Division)

Get this document and AI-powered insights with a free trial of vLex and Vincent AI

Get Started for Free

Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex
51 cases
  • Martin Raymond Owens v Mark Noble
    • United Kingdom
    • Court of Appeal (Civil Division)
    • 18 March 2010
    ...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)
    • United Kingdom
    • Court of Appeal (Civil Division)
    • 9 June 2023
    ...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......
  • Sharab v Al-Saud
    • United Kingdom
    • Court of Appeal (Civil Division)
    • 30 April 2009
    ... ... , remain of relevance and indeed of powerful persuasive authority: see, for example, Hamilton v Al-Fayed (No.4) [2001] EMLR 15 , at [10]-[13], and Al-Koronky v Time-Life Entertainment Group ... ...
  • Karam Salah Al Din Awni Al Sadeq v Dechert LLP
    • United Kingdom
    • Court of Appeal (Civil Division)
    • 24 January 2024
    ... ... Investments Corporation [2000] EWCA Civ 358 [2001] 2 Lloyd's Rep 113 at 125; Hamilton v Al-Fayed (No 2) [2000] EWCA Civ 3012 [2001] EMLR 15 at [11]; Terluk v Berezowsky ... ...
  • Get Started for Free
2 firm's commentaries
1 books & journal articles
  • Civil Procedure
    • Singapore
    • Singapore Academy of Law Annual Review No. 2007, December 2007
    • 1 December 2007
    ...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......