Taylor Hampton client Tamim Rashed has successfully resisted an application to have the libel judgment previously obtained by him (https://taylorhampton.co.uk/press-release-concerning-defamation-proceedings-brought-by-mr-tamim-rashed-against-mr-peter-deane/) set aside by the Defendant to those proceedings, Peter Deane.
Background
The background to the underlying proceedings was that Mr Deane had published a number of posts on his LinkedIn page which were highly defamatory of Mr Rashed. In summary, these posts falsely alleged that Mr Deane was the founder of Expertise Consultancy, owned 50% of it, and carried out work in that capacity. Further, the publications complained of falsely accused Mr Rashed of committing fraud, including defrauding Mr. Deane by ‘stealing’ Expertise Consultancy, as well as assets and money from him.
Mr Rashed commenced proceedings for libel in November 2022 and subsequently obtained judgment in his favour, with Master Eastman striking out the Mr Deane’s Defence and later refusing Mr Deane permission to amend in respect to his fourth attempt to plead a defence. At a resulting remedies trial, Tipples J awarded Mr Rashed £85,000 in damages plus other relief.
The Application
Following enforcement proceedings subsequently taken by Mr Rashed, as a result of the non-payment by Mr Deane of the sums ordered, Mr Deane filed an application in the High Court seeking to set aside the libel judgment (as well as for other orders) on the ground that it allegedly been obtained by fraud (an allegation which Mr Rashed strongly denies).
Following Mr Deane’s application, the court directed that issues arising from Mr Deane’s application be determined at hearing of preliminary issues, including an issue as to whether the court had jurisdiction to hear the set aside application. The preliminary issue hearing came before Deputy High Court Judge Guy-Vassel Adams KC on 20 November 2025, with judgment thereafter handed down in Mr Rashed’s favour on 5 December 2025, dismissing the Mr Deane’s set aside application and clarifying the law on this issue.
Comment
The judgment (https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/KB/2025/3201.html) provides a very useful analysis on the authorities for:
- Setting aside a judgment for alleged fraud and the right being a stand-alone cause of action;
- The circumstances in which, on an appeal, the matter may be remitted back and decided within the same proceedings;
- The interplay between the court’s inherent jurisdiction and the scope of the court’s general powers of case management pursuant to CPR 3.1(7).
In reaching its decide to dismiss the set aside application, the Court concluded that the |leading authorities are unanimous that the correct procedure, consistent with the principle of finality, the nature of the claim being a cause of action and the requirement that fraud allegations must be pleaded and proved to a high standard, is that a party seeking to challenge a judgment on the grounds of fraud must bring a fresh claim. In my view, the Defendant must bring a claim for fraud if he wishes to challenge the orders of Master Eastman and Tipples J. I have no power to invoke CPR 3.1(7) in substitution for the established procedure at common law. Alternatively, if I do have such a power, it is not one that I should exercise..”
The judgment reflects the importance of the principle of finality, which the court found to be the “starting point (…) [and] an important principle in respect of both interim and final orders, but it is particularly important in respect of final orders where the court has granted judgment on the claim, or where the court has awarded damages on the claim, as the two impugned orders do in this case. Ordinarily, a successful party is entitled to assume that a judgment on liability and an award of compensation is the end of matters, subject to the right of the unsuccessful party to appeal.”
Disclaimer
This publication is a general summary of the law. It is not intended to constitute legal advice and should not be relied upon as such.
Further Advice or Assistance
If you are in need of legal advice, or would like to understand more about claims for defamation, please contact our expert legal team on 0207 427 5970 or at [email protected]. See also our defamation legal practice HERE.