Hamilton v Al Fayed: CA 21 Dec 2000

The claimant sought an order saying that his counsel had discarded confidential documents which were retrieved from his dustbin by a Mr Pell who then sold them to his opponent who had used them to obtain an unfair advantage.
Lord Phillips MR said of Ladd v Marshall: ‘These principles have been followed by the Court of Appeal for nearly half a century and are in no way in conflict with the overriding objective. In particular it will not normally be in the interests of justice to reopen a concluded trial in order to introduce fresh evidence unless that evidence will probably influence the result.
Often the fresh evidence relied upon demonstrates that perjured evidence was given at the trial. In such circumstances, provided that the requirements of Ladd v Marshall are satisfied, the practice of the Court of Appeal has been to order a new trial without resolving the issue of whether the alleged fraud in fact occurred.’


Lord Phillips MR, Sedley and Hale LJJ


[2000] EWCA Civ 3012, [2001] EMLR 15




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:

CitedOwens v Noble CA 10-Mar-2010
The respondent had been awarded substantial damages after an accident for which the appellant was responsible. The appellant now said that the claimant had exaggerated his injuries and misled the judge. The defendant argued that the correct approach . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Litigation Practice

Updated: 19 July 2022; Ref: scu.276317