Grounds of appeal—introducing new evidence
Grounds of appeal—introducing new evidence

The following Dispute Resolution practice note provides comprehensive and up to date legal information covering:

  • Grounds of appeal—introducing new evidence
  • Coronavirus—implications for appeals
  • When will the court allow fresh evidence on an appeal?
  • To what extent will the Ladd v Marshall criteria be relevant?
  • Application of the Ladd v Marshall criteria
  • Whether the evidence could have been obtained at trial
  • Whether the evidence would have had an important influence
  • Whether the evidence is credible
  • The evidence makes no difference
  • Family cases
  • More...

Coronavirus (COVID-19): The guidance detailing normal practice set out in this Practice Note may be affected by measures concerning process and procedure in the civil courts that have been introduced as a result of the coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic. The key implications for civil appeals are set out below. For general guidance on the implications of the pandemic for dispute resolution practitioners, see Practice Note: Coronavirus (COVID-19) implications for dispute resolution.

Coronavirus—implications for appeals

For guidance on the measures that have been introduced as a result of the coronavirus pandemic that are of relevance to those involved in appeals in the civil courts and which may impact the guidance concerning normal practice set out in this Practice Note, see: Starting an appeal—general provisions—Coronavirus—implications for appeals.

When will the court allow fresh evidence on an appeal?

The appeal court will only allow an appeal where the decision of the lower court was:

  1. wrong, or

  2. unjust because of a serious procedural or other irregularity in the proceedings in the lower court

For more information, see Practice Note: Grounds for appealing and preliminary considerations.

Pursuant to CPR 52.21(2), the appeal court will not generally consider oral evidence or evidence which was not before the lower court. In Hamid v Francis Bradshaw Partnership, Jackson LJ held that the default position under the CPR is that fresh evidence is excluded, and the normal approach therefore is

Popular documents