It is the second of the four grounds just mentioned which apply in the matter at hand. The rationale for the limited jurisdiction of the court to set aside existing orders and the rationale for the limited exceptions to that jurisdiction were eloquently described by Holroyd Pearce L.J. in Meek v. Fleming,  3 All E.R. 148 at p. 154, where he wrote: Where a party deliberately misleads the court in a material matter, and that deception has probably tipped the scale in his favour (or even, as I think, where it may reasonably have done so) it would be wrong to allow him to retain the judgment thus unfairly procured. Finis litium is a desirable object, but it must not be sought by so great a sacrifice of justice which is and must remain the supreme object. Moreover, to allow the victor to keep the spoils so unworthily obtained would be an encouragement to such behaviour, and do even greater harm than the multiplication of trials. In every case it must be a question of degree, weighing one principle against the other.
Get a full legal research memo!
The above passage should not be considered legal advice. Reliable answers to complex legal questions require comprehensive research memos. To learn more visit www.alexsei.com.