## Facts

- Marshall owned a bungalow in Ashford, Middlesex, subject to a local authority price restriction on resale.
- Marshall negotiated a sale to Ladd, and a signed written document recorded a price of £2,500 with a £50 deposit.
- Ladd alleged he additionally paid Marshall £1,000 in cash “under the table” to circumvent the price restriction; Marshall denied receiving any such payment beyond the £50 deposit.
- After Marshall declined to proceed with the sale, Ladd sued to recover the alleged £1,000 cash payment.
- At trial, Ladd called himself, a friend said to have witnessed the payment, and Mrs Marshall (allegedly present when the cash was counted); she professed lack of memory and was not treated as a hostile witness.
- The trial judge rejected Ladd’s account, accepted Marshall’s denial, and entered judgment for Marshall.
- After trial, Mrs Marshall separated from Marshall and made a new statement that she had lied at trial and had in fact seen the £1,000 payment; Ladd sought to adduce this as fresh evidence on appeal and/or obtain a new trial.

## Issues

1. Under what conditions may an appellate court admit fresh evidence (or order a new trial) in a civil appeal after judgment?
2. Whether Mrs Marshall’s post-trial recantation satisfied the requirements for admitting fresh evidence.
3. Whether alleged shortcomings in the conduct of the trial justified a new trial independent of the fresh-evidence criteria.

## Decision

- The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal and refused to admit the fresh evidence.
- The court held the first condition failed because the evidence could, with reasonable diligence, have been obtained and tested at trial (Mrs Marshall was called, but her evidence was not properly challenged).
- The court accepted the second condition was broadly satisfied because the new testimony, if believed, would likely have an important influence on the outcome.
- The court held the third condition failed because a recanting witness who admits lying is not ordinarily “apparently credible” absent a convincing explanation and grounds to expect truthfulness on the second occasion.
- The court declined to order a new trial based on complaints about the trial, treating the principal problems as forensic choices rather than procedural injustice.

## Legal Principles

- Fresh evidence on a civil appeal is admitted only if:
  - it could not have been obtained with reasonable diligence for use at trial;
  - it would probably have an important influence on the result (though not necessarily decisive); and
  - it is apparently credible (presumably to be believed, though not incontrovertible).
- Finality of litigation limits the reception of fresh evidence; an opposing party should not be deprived of an existing judgment without strong justification.
- Where proposed fresh evidence comes from a witness who admits prior dishonesty, the appellate court generally requires a persuasive reason for the earlier lie and a sound basis to credit the new account.

## Conclusion

The Court of Appeal refused to reopen the case because the proposed recantation evidence was not shown to be unavailable with reasonable diligence and, more importantly, lacked apparent credibility given the witness’s admitted prior falsehood and insufficient justification for it; the original judgment for Marshall stood.


Ladd v. Marshall, [1954] 1 W.L.R. 1489 (Eng. C.A. 1954)