Fisher v Cadman and Others: ChD 14 Jun 2005

The trial was concluded and the judgment had been given, but before the order was handed down, the defendants applied to be allowed to provide further evidence.
Held: The standards of Ladd v Marshall might be applied in such a situation, but with a little more flexibility than an appeal court might have done, but the defendants had not shown that they could not have obtained this evidence with reasonable diligence. The appeal failed.


Phillip Sales


Times 23-Jun-2005, [2005] EWHC 377 (Ch), [2006] 1 BCLC 499




Companies Act 1985 459


England and Wales


CitedLadd v Marshall CA 29-Nov-1954
Conditions for new evidence on appeal
At the trial, the wife of the appellant’s opponent said she had forgotten certain events. After the trial she began divorce proceedings, and informed the appellant that she now remembered. He sought either to appeal admitting fresh evidence, or for . .

Cited by:

CitedKohli v Lit and Others ChD 13-Nov-2009
The claimant asserted that the other shareholders had acted in a manner unfairly prejudicial to her within the company.
Held: The claimant was allowed to bring in without prejudice correspondence to contradict evidence by the defendant which . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Litigation Practice, Company

Updated: 05 October 2022; Ref: scu.227911