When Should A Judgment Be Set Aside For Fraud?

Takhar (Appellant) v Gracefield Developments Limited and others (Respondents) [2019] UKSC 13

Background Facts

This case concerns Balber Kaur Takhar (the Appellant) and her cousin Parkash Kaur Krishan (the third Respondent) who, having not seen each other for many years, became reacquainted in 2004. During this time, Mrs Takhar was suffering personal and financial problems, having separated from her husband five years previously. Mrs Takhar had acquired a number of properties in Coventry as part of the arrangements with her former husband. Financial problems arose from the dilapidated condition of some of the properties and, in 2005, it was agreed between Mrs Takhar and the Krishans that legal title to the properties would be transferred to a newly formed company Gracefield Developments Limited, of which Mrs Takhar and the Krishans were directors and shareholders.

Mrs Takhar claimed that it had been agreed that the properties would be renovated and then let. The rent would be used to fund the cost of the renovations, which until that point would be subsidised by the Krishans. Mrs Takhar was also to remain the sole owner of the properties. The Krishans, however, claimed that Gracefield was established as a joint venture, that the properties were to be sold upon renovation and that Mrs Takhar was to be paid an agreed sum after they were sold. Any additional profit was to be divided equally between Mrs Takhar and the Krishans.

In October 2008, Mrs Takhar issued proceedings for a declaration as to the ownership of the properties and claimed the properties had been transferred to Gracefield as a result of undue influence or other unconscionable conduct. The Krishans presented a profit share agreement (PSA), allegedly signed by Mrs Takhar, to prove her agreement to their terms. Mrs Takhar had applied before the trial for permission to obtain evidence from a handwriting expert who had produced a report stating that the expert could not say that the signature on the PSA was that of Mrs Takhar. Permission was refused. At the trial, Judge Purle QC held that the properties had been transferred legally and in accordance with the oral agreement made between the parties.

Following the trial, Mrs Takhar instructed new solicitors who consulted another handwriting expert who conclusively stated that the signature on the PSA had been transposed from a letter sent to the Krishans' solicitors in 2006. Mrs Takhar was advised that she had enough evidence to plead...