The defendant disputed at trial the authenticity of invoices, but provided no forensic evidence to support his challenge. The trial judge had accepted the invoices as authentic. The defendant subsequently adduced evidence which strongly suggested that the invoices were forgeries. The trial judge refused to order a new trial on the basis that the defendant had failed to show that it could not have obtained the new evidence in time for the trial.
Held: The appeal succeeded, and a new trial was ordered.
Butler-Sloss LJ said that, in a case of alleged fraud, the first of the Ladd v Marshall conditions should be approached with a greater degree of flexibility: ‘Too strict an adherence to Ladd v Marshall should not inhibit a consideration by the court of the justice of the case.’
Judges:
Butler-Sloss LJ
Citations:
Unreported, 13 December 1995
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Cited by:
Instructive – Owens 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: 06 July 2022; Ref: scu.414954