Case No: LM-2017-000173 |
QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION
LONDON CIRCUIT COMMERCIAL COURT
Rolls Building, Fetter Lane, London, EC4A 1WL |
||
B e f o r e :
(SITTING AS A JUDGE OF THE HIGH COURT)
____________________
(1) CENTURY FINANCIAL HOLDINGS LIMITED (2) SANJAY THAKRAR -and- (1) JAMTOFF TRADING LIMITED (2) PARESH THAKKAR And Between: CENTURY FINANCIAL HOLDINGS LIMITED -and- (1) JAMTOFF TRADING LIMITED (2) PARESH THAKKAR |
Claimants in LM-2017-000127 Defendants in LM-2017-000127 Claimants in LM-2017-000173 Defendants in LM-2017-000173 |
____________________
1st Floor, Quality House, 6-9 Quality Court, Chancery Lane, London WC2A 1HP.
Telephone No: 020 7067 2900. Fax No: 020 7831 6864 DX 410 LDE
Email: info@martenwalshcherer.com
Web: www.martenwalshcherer.com
William Edwards (instructed by DWF LLP) for the Defendants
____________________
Crown Copyright ©
ANDREW BURROWS QC:
Introduction
"… I regarded Mr Thakrar as generally unreliable, evasive and a person who was caught out on a number of occasions by the documents. This is consistent with how John Baldwin QC, sitting as a High Court judge, found him to be in the case of Jean Christian Perfumes Ltd & Anor v Thakrar (t/a Brand Distributor or Brand Distributors Ltd) [2011] EWHC 1383 at paragraph 17 of his judgment. The judge said Mr Thakrar was on many occasions evasive and made unsatisfactory excuses for not answering a question and that it was clear from the contemporaneous documents that what he said in his examination-in-chief was untrue."
HHJ Waksman QC went on to say the following about Paresh in his judgment at [18]:
"Mr Thakkar I also find was unreliable on key points, which could often be judged by the many contemporaneous documents available in this case."
"There is no real prospect of success on appeal on any of the grounds advanced, and no other compelling [reason] to grant permission to appeal."
The claims and applications
Jamtoff's first strike out application: the application to strike out the fraud set aside claim
"[I]t must be shown that the fresh evidence would have entirely changed the way in which the first court approached and came to its decision."
Mr Bogle submitted that, even if that test applied, the claimants satisfied it; but that the better view on the authorities is that that puts the legal hurdle too high and that the correct test, as set out in Hamilton v Al Fayed (No 2) [2001] EMLR 15, at [34] (supported by obiter dicta of Sir Terence Etherton MR in Salekipour v Parmar [2017] EWCA Civ 2141, [2018] QB 833 at [93]), is that there is 'a real danger that [the fraud] has affected the outcome of the trial'. I shall assume, without deciding, that it is sufficient for the claimants to satisfy that less stringent test.
Jamtoff's second strike out application: the application to strike out the delivery up claim
Conclusion