Read the full judgment text of CACV 512/2019 on BabelCite. This Court of Appeal judgment was delivered on 31 December 2020 before Hon Lam VP and Barma JA.
Civil procedure – appeal – admission of additional evidence on appeal – Ladd v Marshall criteria – reasonable diligence – whether reasonable diligence criterion can be relaxed for fraud allegations – distinction between fraud in obtaining the judgment below and fraud in the underlying transaction – whether recent fresh-action authorities (Clone Pty Ltd v Players Pty Ltd; Takhar v Gracefield Developments Ltd; Mayer Corporation Development International Ltd v Alliance Financial Intelligence Ltd) extend to appellate context – principles in Royal Bank of Scotland plc v Highland Financial Partners for setting aside judgments for fraud – Applicant executed personal Guarantee to Bank of China Limited, Dongguan Branch after Jiangmen Central took over liabilities of Henghui Group in white knight arrangement – alleged letter of credit fraud in 2012-2013 by Zheng with BOC Dongguan staff – Applicant sought to set aside statutory demand in HCSD 3/2018 primarily relying on pending SPC appeal and withholding substantive merits – whether the court below's judgment was obtained by fraud – whether the Applicant exercised reasonable diligence – whether evidence would have very important influence on result – whether evidence is apparently credible – witnesses Zou, Lu and Dai – whether a new ground of appeal based on the underlying fraud can be raised for the first time on appeal – application to admit additional evidence dismissed with costs.
Legal issues: Whether the reasonable diligence criterion in Ladd v Marshall can be relaxed for fraud allegations on appeal · Whether the new evidence shows the judgment below was obtained by fraud · Whether the Applicant satisfied the reasonable diligence criterion in Ladd v Marshall · Whether the new evidence satisfies the influence and credibility criteria in Ladd v Marshall · Whether a new ground of appeal based on alleged fraud in the underlying dispute can be raised for the first time on appeal
Outcome: Application for leave to adduce additional evidence on appeal dismissed.
Cited by 13 cases · Cites 7 cases