Historically, where a claimant pleaded fraud, they were not entitled to make an application for summary judgment. The reason for this so called “fraud exception” was that due to the serious nature of the allegations and consequences of such, it would be inappropriate for such matters to be determined at an interim stage without defendants being afforded the opportunity to fully explore the issues at trial. This exception was abolished in England and Wales in 1992, and yet it has remained difficult to meet the threshold for summary judgment in fraud cases.
We’ve all heard of Bitcoin, but for a long time the concept of a “cryptocurrency” seemed to belong to another world, the online world, and was something far removed from day-to-day life. In recent years, cryptocurrencies have crept further and further into the real world with Mastercard announcing plans to support cryptocurrency payments on its network this year, and a number of traditional banks planning to welcome Bitcoin and other cryptocurrencies, eventually treating them like any other asset.
The Court of Appeal has recently upheld an appeal by HSBC against a High Court ruling which refused to strike out a claim against it for breach of its Quincecare duty when it unwittingly got caught up in a Ponzi scheme. The decision limits the scope of the Quincecare duty and will be welcomed by financial institutions.
In the recent case of Valbonne Estates Limited v (1) Cityvalue Estates Limited (2) United Homes Limited [2021] EWHC 544 (Ch), Mrs Justice Bacon discharged a pre-action injunction that had been obtained on a without notice basis, on grounds that the injunction had been obtained with misleading evidence.
Tenet Compliance & Litigation is delighted to have teamed up with RICS in writing content for their isurv online library covering a range of subjects about property fraud in the commercial property sector. We produced about 12,000 words of content to help their members who use this service prevent and respond to fraud. They have approx. 140,000 members across over 140 countries.
The principle of “fraud unravels all” relies upon new evidence being capable of demonstrating that there was “conscious and deliberate dishonesty” which was causative of the original judgment being obtained by fraud. Where the fresh evidence adduced is not sufficiently related to the issues which were before the court in the original trial, the scales of justice will favour the finality of litigation.
Following the Supreme Court judgment in Singularis v Daiwa and a number of high-profile interim judgments on the so-called “Quincecare” duty during the course of 2020, we take a look at how the law is developing in this area and what we can expect from the case law going forward.
Covert or illicit recording – Can it be used as evidence in a civil fraud dispute?
What if a fraud victim obtains or is in possession of an audio recording, obtained improperly, which contains information that the victim believes proves a civil fraud has been committed? Will the Court allow such material to be admitted as evidence in support of the victim’s fraud claim?
In 2017, the British Standards Institution (“BSI”) launched a code of practice for financial institutions (including banks) that sought to give recommendations to organisations for protecting vulnerable customers from financial harm. Whilst a breach of the protocol may not mean immediate reimbursement by an organisation it is certainly a helpful indicator of what standards they are expected to meet and a weapon in your arsenal if you can show breaches.
On 19 November 2020 the High Court handed down judgment in the application of I.F.T. S.A.L. Offshore [2020] EWHC 3125. This application concerned an authorised push payment where the victim had sought to obtain information from the fraudsters bank about the accounts to which the money had been inadvertently transferred.
An application was made against the bank to obtain disclosure to allow the victim to pursue the unknown fraudsters. This was made under the Norwich Pharmacal and Bankers Trust jurisdictions.Where a party receives a Norwich Pharmacal Order they are required to provide certain documents or information specified in the court order to the applicant. This application is not generally available against a respondent who is likely to be a party to the potential proceedings.
Upon receipt of the disclosure it became apparent that there was a case against the bank but under the terms of the order the victim was precluded from using the disclosure provided to pursue a claim against the bank.
I.F.T .S.A.L. Offshore made an application to vary the terms of the order so that they could use the disclosure against the bank. This was resisted by the bank but was granted by the court.
