Fresh Evidence After Judgment

Townsend v Achilleas (CLW 25 August CA)

Although Ladd v Marshall [1954] 1 WLR 1489 did not constitute authority when interpreting the Civil Procedure Rules, it is important to consider the test in Ladd in order to give effect to the overriding objective to deal with cases justly. There was no justification for adopting a stricter approach to that found in Ladd for applications to admit fresh evidence post trial, the test being whether the evidence could have been obtained before trial by the exercise of reasonable diligence. In the present case the tenant sought to recover compensation arising from the loss of her uninsured possessions in a fire at the property. Her case was that the fire had probably started near electrical distribution equipment, whilst the landlord alleged it was very likely the fire was caused by the tenant’s son smoking in bed. The son denied that he had been a smoker at the material time and the trial judge found, on the balance of probabilities, in favour of the tenant. After judgment the landlord discovered by chance from a former school friend of the tenant’s son that he had been a regular smoker during his school days.