Fraud

It was settled principle that there were two separate aspects of the requirements relating to the pleading of fraud. The first was that there had to be an express allegation of fraud. The words “fraud” or “dishonesty” did not have to be used: the use of words which were inconsistent with an absence of fraud and dishonesty was enough. It was enough, therefore, to plead that a defendant was party to an unlawful means conspiracy since such involvement was wholly inconsistent with an absence of fraud or dishonesty. It was settled law that there was no proper pleading of fraud if the pleaded facts were consistent with an absence of fraud or dishonesty. Simply to allege fraud or knowledge was not enough. The second requirement in a fraud case was that a defendant was entitled to know from the pleadings the fraud which he was alleged to have perpetrated and the allegations of fact which were made against him in order to establish the fraud alleged. Since knowledge was of the essence of fraud, he was entitled to particulars of knowledge. Usually, the knowledge of a defendant was to be inferred from all of the facts. Accordingly, a plea of fraud was certainly not to be struck out on a pleading point if it alleged: (i) fraud or dishonesty; (ii) the primary facts relied on to found an inference; and (iii) the extent of the knowledge of the fraud which it was said was to be inferred.