The Limits of Finality

This website will offer limited functionality in this browser. We only support the recent versions of major browsers like Chrome, Firefox, Safari, and Edge.
Judgments are supposed to be the end of the road. But what if that judgment was built on fraud?
In UK & EU Claim Lawyers LLC v Enterprise Rent-A-Car (UK) Ltd [2025] EWHC 2317 (Ch), the High Court in Manchester set aside a series of online money judgments after finding they had been obtained through false assertions that Enterprise had “accepted” liability. One earlier default judgment was also overturned, and in the end all four claims were struck out as abuses of process.
The judge stressed that courts are usually very reluctant to disturb final orders. But fraud is the clear exception. The reasoning drew on the Supreme Court’s approach in AIC v Nigeria [2022] UKSC 16, which confirmed that even the principle of finality can give way when justice demands it. Fraudulent judgments fall squarely into that category.
The case also flagged a flaw (since fixed) in the online money claims system, which had allowed claimants to enter “acceptances” without proof the defendant had actually agreed.
Why it matters:
The punchline? For businesses, the lesson is clear: while judgments usually provide certainty, fraud remains the exception that can – if proved – reopen the door.
While judgments usually provide certainty, fraud remains the exception that can – if proved – reopen the door.