What options do you have when your opponent fabricates evidence? Stuart Paterson & Gareth Keillor
The Court of Appeal decision in Arrow Nominees v Blackledge [2000] 2 BCLC 167 is the first to consider in any detail the proper response to the dishonest conduct of litigation.
Arrow Nominees (AN) had a minority shareholding in a company called Bodycare (Health & Beauty) Limited which was managed by Blackledge (the majority shareholder). AN brought a petition alleging unfairly prejudicial conduct by Blackledge.
During the course of proceedings, a challenge was made to the authenticity of six letters disclosed by AN. AN’s then solicitors admitted (three months before trial) that these letters were “not authentic”.
The individual in control of AN (Nigel Tobias) later admitted that he had forged them. Blackledge applied to strike out the petition. The application was refused on the basis that there was no jurisdiction to strike out unless there was a substantial risk that there could not be a fair trial. The judge held that there was no evidence of such a risk, but that if further evidence of impropriety emerged
