Flowers v Finlayson (No 2)

This matter concerned an application to set aside a perfected judgment. The applicant sought to rely on the High Court's decision in *Clone Pty Ltd v Players Pty Ltd (In Liquidation) (Receivers & Managers Appointed)*, which dealt with the equitable jurisdiction to set aside a perfected judgment on the ground of fraud. The court noted that the applicant had not addressed the Uniform Civil Rules 2020 (SA) r 186.1, which provides a rules-based power to set aside or vary a judgment, and that the application was based squarely on fraud.

The central legal issue was the scope of the equitable jurisdiction to set aside a perfected judgment for fraud, particularly whether it extended to professional misconduct by lawyers representing the successful party. The court considered the historical development of this jurisdiction, tracing its roots to the equitable bill of review and distinguishing it from the appellate court's power to set aside a lower court judgment. The court also examined the High Court's reasoning in *Clone v Players*, which clarified that the equitable power to set aside a judgment for fraud required actual fraud, not merely misconduct, accident, surprise, or mistake.

The court explained that while the equitable bill of review did not survive the development of the right of appeal, the equitable power to set aside a judgment on the ground of fraud persisted. However, this power is narrowly defined and requires actual fraud, meaning the party seeking to set aside the judgment must demonstrate that the judgment was obtained by a person acting with the intention of knowingly defrauding another. The court referenced *Patch v Ward* to illustrate that the essence of such an action is actual fraud, and this ground is not diluted to encompass other forms of misconduct.