Re U (A Child): CA 24 Feb 2005

The applicant sought a second appeal saying there was fresh evidence.
Held: Applying Taylor -v- Lawrence, a second appeal could only be entertained where it was shown that the earlier judicial process had been critically undermined. It must be shown at least that there was a powerful possibility that an erroneous result had in fact been perpetrated. That test might be met where it was shown that the process was corrupted. It was not met only where it was shown that a wrong result might have been arrived at. Neither situation applied here, and the application was misconceived in principle.
Dame Elizabeth Butler-Sloss P siad:
Dame Elizabeth Butler-Sloss P said: ‘ In our judgment it must at least be shown, not merely that the fresh evidence demonstrates a real possibility that an erroneous result was arrived at in the earlier proceedings (first instance or appellate), but that there exists a powerful probability that such a result has in fact been perpetrated. That, in our view, is a necessary but by no means a sufficient condition for a successful application under CPR 52.17(1). It is to be remembered that apart from the requirement of no alternative remedy, ‘[t]he effect of reopening the appeal on others and the extent to which the complaining party is the author of his own misfortune will also be important considerations’ (Taylor v Lawrence, 547). Earlier we stated that the Taylor v Lawrence jurisdiction can only be properly invoked where it is demonstrated that the integrity of the earlier litigation process, whether at trial or at the first appeal, has been critically undermined. That test will generally be met where the process has been corrupted. It may be met where it is shown that a wrong result was earlier arrived at. It will not be met where it is shown only that a wrong result may have been arrived at.’
Lord Justice Laws The President Lord Justice Thorp
[2005] EWCA Civ 52, [2005] 1 WLR 2398, [2005] 2 FLR 444, [2005] Fam Law 449, [2005] 1 FCR 583, [2005] 3 All ER 550
Bailii
England and Wales
Citing:
AppliedTaylor v Lawrence CA 4-Feb-2002
A party sought to re-open a judgment on the Court of Appeal after it had been perfected. A case had been tried before a judge. One party had asked for a different judge to be appointed, after the judge disclosed that he had been a client of the firm . .

Cited by:
CitedBusiness Environment Bow Lane Ltd v Deanwater Estates Ltd ChD 31-Jul-2009
The court was asked ‘Where a claimant has picked up one or more costs orders in its favour on the way to a trial, but fails very badly at the trial (for example due to exaggeration), can the costs judge assess those costs at nil on the footing that . .
CitedBancoult, Regina (on The Application of) v Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (No 2) SC 29-Jun-2016
Undisclosed Matter inadequate to revisit decision
The claimant sought to have set aside a decision of the House of Lords as to the validity of the 2004 Order, saying that it had been based on a failure by the defendant properly to disclose matters it was under a duty of candour to disclose.
CitedBancoult, Regina (on The Application of) v Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (No 2) SC 29-Jun-2016
Undisclosed Matter inadequate to revisit decision
The claimant sought to have set aside a decision of the House of Lords as to the validity of the 2004 Order, saying that it had been based on a failure by the defendant properly to disclose matters it was under a duty of candour to disclose.
Updated: 22 January 2021; Ref: scu.222953