A draft damages schedule for Great House Farm (Tŷ Mawr): what each party gained, what the family lost, and who to claim from.
Draft for legal review — a starting schedule for negotiation, not an assessment by a court.
Two measures, never added together: the family elects the higher one against each party. Tap a tooth for its working.
Who to claim from, for what, how much, and on what basis. Each party’s rows add to its compensation share; its gain sits beside it, and the higher of the two is the opening figure.
“In my view, it ought now to be recognised that where it can be shown that a judgment has been obtained by fraud, and where no allegation of fraud had been raised at the trial which led to that judgment, a requirement of reasonable diligence should not be imposed on the party seeking to set aside the judgment.” — Takhar v Gracefield Developments Ltd [2019] UKSC 13, para 54 (Lord Kerr)
“The principles are, briefly: first, there has to be a ‘conscious and deliberate dishonesty’ in relation to the relevant evidence given, or action taken, statement made or matter concealed, which is relevant to the judgment now sought to be impugned. Secondly, the relevant evidence, action, statement or concealment (performed with conscious and deliberate dishonesty) must be ‘material’. ‘Material’ means that the fresh evidence that is adduced after the first judgment has been given is such that it demonstrates that the previous relevant evidence, action, statement or concealment was an operative cause of the court’s decision to give judgment in the way it did. Put another way, it must be shown that the fresh evidence would have entirely changed the way in which the first court approached and came to its decision. Thus the relevant conscious and deliberate dishonesty must be causative of the impugned judgment being obtained in the terms it was. Thirdly, the question of materiality of the fresh evidence is to be assessed by reference to its impact on the evidence supporting the original decision, not by reference to its impact on what decision might be made if the claim were to be retried on honest evidence.” — RBS v Highland Financial Partners [2013] EWCA Civ 328, para 106 (Aikens LJ), adopted in Takhar, para 56
Time: Limitation Act 1980 s.32(1)(b) — where “any fact relevant to the plaintiff’s right of action has been deliberately concealed from him by the defendant”, the period runs from discovery. Human Rights Act 1998 claims (A1P1, Article 8) reach only acts after 2 October 2000.
The same story as a game: every wrong on the record gets a ticket, every loss a double-entry ledger line at the analyst’s mid figure. Flip the switch to post each loss to the parties above.
The ten loss heads of the analyst build-up, at mid. Every cost is two entries: debit the side that carries it, credit the event that caused it. Flip the switch and each one posts across to the parties it is claimed from.
Fixed bands from 1 to 1,000,000 points. A ticket takes its band score, then the multipliers, capped at 1,000,000. The original ticket is the yardstick.
Orders against the family that rest on the title question are quashed and their points re-issued to the party that obtained them. The original ticket stays: it was admitted. Contingent costs post across to Team Regime, each head to the parties it is claimed from, in the shares of the negotiation schedule. Lines with no £ on the record yet stay where they are until a figure is found.
Sources: the Legal Wiki · data: tickets.json · ledger.json