This preview shows page 106 - 108 out of 111 pages.
-3.6.1Fraud--XXX may resist the enforcement of the judgment by pleading the judgment was obtained by fraud -XXX must be able to produce new evidence showing fraud, particularly if such evidence was not available at trial (Boughen v Abel).-However, even if there was evidence at the time of trial showing evidence the matter may be raised in the local forum (Abouloff v Oppenheimer; Syal v Heyward; Owens Banks v Bracco)-Note that this matter has not yet been considered by Australian courts--Examples of fraud-False evidence-Forged documents-Collateral fraud i.e. violence (Jet Holdings v Patel)--Abouloff v Oppenheimer-Action bought on Russian judgment ordering return of certain goods that had been detained or payment of their value-Argued before foreign court that one of parties was engaging in fraud-Foreign court considered matter and determined there was no fraud-When the judgment is being enforced in forum the issue of fraud can be raised again-HELD: it can be raised because how can a foreign court know that it hasn’t been misled, it could never have been inissue before the foreign court--Vadala v Lawes-Accepts Abouloff--Syal v Heyward-Even though fraud was deliberately not raised in foreign court it can be raised in forum court--Jet Holdings v Patel-For purposes of fraud under this defence, it include collateral fraud-There was an assertion that one side had threatened violence and intimidation – this gives grounds for resisting enforcement of judgment--English Courts Limit Traditional View-House of Spring Gardens v Waite-Fraud was re-litigated in foreign court-English court said enough, that should create an estoppel or be conclusive, was an abuse of court process to re-litigate matter-Owens Bank Ltd v Etoile Commerciale SA-English court had inherent power to prevent misuse of its process-Where an allegation of fraud has been made and determined abroad-There must be plausible evidence disclosing a prima facie case of fraud otherwise there is summary judgment or strike out the claim-Couldn’t change common law view of fraud because this would change statutory view of fraud-This view has been highly criticised – if you change the common law position then the CL just adapts--Keele v Findley– Australia’s approach-CJ Rogers thought the time had come to abandon the traditional common law approach106
-There is no authority in Australia where the matter has come up fairly for decision----3.6.2Natural Justice--XXX may resist the enforcement of the judgment by pleading the judgment was obtained by a breach or denial of natural justice. Traditionally, the concept of natural justice does not refer to the merits of the case but to procedural aspects.--Two such fundamental aspects of natural justice include-Due notice (Jamieson v Robb); and-Proper Opportunity to be HeardoBias Bias on the part of tribunal is denial of NJ but our courts will be slow to accept there has been bias.