F - Fraud and mistake
8/3/24
BRENDON INTERNATIONAL LTD v WATER PLUS LTD [2024] EWCA Civ 220
Explains the distinction between the legal and evidential burden of proof [50]. In a claim for recovery of money paid by mistake, the legal burden of proof is on the claimant. The judge had wrongly confused the two and wrongly applied a presumption. The appeal court explained when a person may be regarded as qualified to give expert evidence [75] and when a witness can give evidence of fact and opinion [86]. The judge had failed to give sufficient reasons for refusing to treat a witness as an expert. The court also considered what reasonable diligence means in the context of Limitation Act 1980, s.32 [94]. The judge had not asked the right question, which involves asking what the actual claimant could have learned not just what they did learn.
27/5/20
BOYSE (INTERNATIONAL) LTD v NATWEST MARKETS PLC [2020] EWHC 1264 (Ch)
Considers the law relating to pleading deceit and fraud in a claim relating to LIBOR manipulation [35] and when the claimant could with reasonable diligence have discovered the fraud for the purpose of s 32(1) Limitation Act 1980 [38]. For that purpose there must have been something to put the claimant on notice [47]. Considers whether proceedings can be struck out where this is in issue, or whether summary judgment is appropriate [48]. It will normally be appropriate for summary judgment to be pursued on a limitation point and preferably after the claimant has had an opportunity to plead its case [53]. On the facts the claim was time barred and an application for permission to amend was dismissed.