The court discussed the applicability of Ladd -v Marshall principles as to the admission of new evidence in public law proceedings. Sir John Donaldson MR said: ‘the decision in Ladd v Marshall [1954] 1 WLR 1489 has as such no place in that context,’ but ‘the principles which underlie issue estoppel and the decision in Ladd v Marshall, namely that there must be finality in litigation, are applicable subject always to the discretion of the Court to depart from them if the wider interests of justice so require.’
and ‘This fresh evidence was clearly available and should have been placed before Webster J. It is not the function of this court, as an appellate court, to retry an originating application on different and better evidence. We are concerned to decide whether the trial judge’s decision was right on the materials available to him, unless the new evidence could not have been made available to him by the exercise of reasonable diligence or there is some other exceptional circumstance which justifies its admission and consideration by this court. That is not this case.’
Judges:
Sir John Donaldson MR
Citations:
[1984] 1 WLR 663, [1984] Imm AR 23, [1984] 1 All ER 1009
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – Ladd 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:
Cited – Regina v Immigration Appeal Tribunal ex parte Haile CA 2002
The adjudicator in the asylum application had made a crucial mistake about the identity of the political party in Ethiopia, with which the claimant was connected. The error was not drawn to the attention of the IAT. The evidence necessary to prove . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Evidence
Updated: 09 May 2022; Ref: scu.193434
