Temple Garden Chambers is a leading common law set based in London and The Hague.
With excellence from top to bottom Chambers provides a first class service in a number of different fields.
Temple Garden Chambers is a leading common law set based in London and The Hague.
With excellence from top to bottom Chambers provides a first class service in a number of different fields.
27/07/2023
| Ben Casey successfully resisted the Defendant/Appellant’s applications to adduce fresh evidence for the purposes of an appeal and for permission to appeal itself. The fresh evidence concerned surveillance evidence of the Claimant which the Defendant/ Appellant had obtained post-trial. The Defendant/Appellant contended that the post-trial surveillance evidence falsified the basis on which the trial judge had assessed quantum. It argued that the evidence was such as to raise the issue of fundamental dishonesty. Mr Justice Soole disagreed with the Defendant/ Appellant’s assessment of the surveillance evidence and concluded that the application to adduce fresh evidence plainly failed the first two limbs of the Ladd v Marshall test. He went on to consider the residual grounds of appeal and declined permission for the same. Mr Justice Soole was further persuaded that the case fell within the exceptions to the general rule concerning Respondents not being awarded the costs of attending a permission hearing. In the circumstances, the Respondent was awarded the costs of and occasioned by both of the Defendant/ Appellant’s applications. |
