|[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback]|
England and Wales High Court (Chancery Division) Decisions
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> England and Wales High Court (Chancery Division) Decisions >> Yongxiong v Gate Ventures Plc  EWHC 645 (Ch) (04 March 2020)
Cite as:  EWHC 645 (Ch)
[New search] [Context] [View without highlighting] [Printable PDF version] [Help]
BUSINESS AND PROPERTY COURTS OF ENGLAND & WALES
ORDER OF ICC JUDGE PRENTIS DATED 24 SEPTEMBER 2020
London; EC4A 1NL
B e f o r e :
| ZHENG YONGXIONG
|- and -
|GATE VENTURES PLC
2nd 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
MR PETER IRVIN (instructed by Croft Solicitors) for the Respondent
Crown Copyright ©
MR JUSTICE ZACAROLI:
"Where, as was the case on 25th October, the evidence appears to be contradicted by underlying documents in material respects, and where, as also occurred in this case, important matters were not addressed in the evidence, one likely consequence is a want of confidence in the evidence; this, in turn, is likely to cast a shadow over reliance on the Applicants' witness evidence as the basis for determining the outcome of the application. That the Applicants' evidence is unreliable would not of itself cast doubt on the genuineness of expression of opinion by the proposed administrators, but it may well diminish or negate the weight to be attached to such opinions."
"In my judgment, the true principle of law is derived from Jonesco [v Beard] and is that, where fresh evidence is adduced in the Court of Appeal tending to show that the judge at first instance was deliberately misled, the court will only allow the appeal and order a retrial where the fraud is either admitted or the evidence of it is incontrovertible. In any other case, the issue of fraud must be determined before the judgment of the court below can be set aside."
"Although the old cases say that where there is an issue of fraud to be tried that must be done by commencing a fresh action, I do not think that in this day and age that should always be necessary. All that is needed is that the issue of fraud should be determined. That could be done just as well (if not better) by this court referring the trial of the fraud issue to a High Court Judge pursuant to CPR 52.10(2)(b)."
I note that the relevant rule is now CPR 52.20(2)(b).