Ladd v Marshall

JurisdictionEngland & Wales
JudgeLord Justice Denning,Lord Justice Hodson,Lord Justice Parker
Judgment Date29 November 1954
Neutral Citation[1954] EWCA Civ 1
Year1954
Docket NumberCase No.:
Date29 November 1954
CourtCourt of Appeal

Get this document and AI-powered insights with a free trial of vLex and Vincent AI

Get Started for Free

Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex
1859 cases
  • Ashmore v British Coal Corporation
    • United Kingdom
    • Court of Appeal (Civil Division)
    • 27 February 1990
    ... ... 283 at page 334, in preference to the less rigorous test applied on the admission of fresh evidence in appeals as laid down in Ladd v. Marshall (1954) 1 W.L.R. 1489 at page 1491, namely that it "would probably have an important influence on the result of the case, though it need ... ...
  • Council for the Regulation of Health Care Professionals v General Medical Council, Nursing and Midwifery Council, Truscott and Ruscillo
    • United Kingdom
    • Court of Appeal (Civil Division)
    • 20 October 2004
    ... ... Where an application is made to the Court to adduce additional evidence pursuant to CPR 52.11 (2) the Court should not apply the principle in Ladd v Marshall [1954] 1 WLR 1489 ... The principles in that case have no application to a reference under section 29. The fact that the evidence could ... ...
  • Brady v Group Lotus Car Cos. Plc
    • United Kingdom
    • Court of Appeal (Civil Division)
    • 31 July 1987
  • Gohil v Gohil
    • United Kingdom
    • Supreme Court
    • 14 October 2015
    ...referable to the admissibility of fresh evidence on appeal, as propounded in the decision of the Court of Appeal in Ladd v Marshall [1954] 1 WLR 1489, have any relevance to the determination of a spouse's application to set aside a financial order in divorce proceedings on the ground of a f......
  • Get Started for Free
4 firm's commentaries
  • Recent Developments In Extradition Appeals
    • United Kingdom
    • Mondaq United Kingdom
    • 9 August 2010
    ...at first instance. Attempts at late repairs to cases by either side at the appeal stage will not be well received. Footnotes 1. [1954] 1 W.L.R. 1489. Leave to adduce further evidence on appeal will only be granted (1) if it is shown that the evidence could not have been obtained with reason......
  • A Stern Warning From The Supreme Court In England To Spouses Who Hide Their Assets
    • United Kingdom
    • Mondaq UK
    • 17 December 2015
    ...of money-laundering offences. H appealed Moylan J's order to set aside, citing lack of jurisdiction and relying on Ladd v Marshall [1954] 1 WLR 1489 regarding the admissibility of new evidence on Before the CA, H contended that MoylanJ had no jurisdiction as a high court judge to set aside ......
  • Fresh Evidence On Appeal: Recent Comments From The Eastern Caribbean Court Of Appeal
    • Hong Kong
    • Mondaq Hong Kong
    • 26 July 2023
    ...explanation of the law governing admitting fresh evidence on appeal is to be found in an old English case, Ladd v Marshall [1954] 1 WLR 1489. Under Ladd v Marshall, fresh evidence be allowed on an appeal against a final decision only if the evidence: could not have been obtained with reason......
  • Winding Up A Cayman ELP – Post Judgment Admission Of Evidence And Costs
    • Cayman Islands
    • Mondaq Cayman Islands
    • 22 January 2014
    ...it. See the Court of Appeal decision in Camulos Partners Offshore Limited v Katherin & Co 2010 (1) CIHL 303. 4 [2000] 1 WLR 230 5 [1954] 1 WLR 1489 The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your spe......
25 books & journal articles
  • Litigation
    • United Kingdom
    • Construction Law. Volume III - Third Edition
    • 13 April 2020
    ...71 at [31]. 1342 See, eg, CPR rule 52.21(2). 1343 here are limited circumstances in which new evidence may be adduced: Ladd v Marshall [1954] 1 WLR 1489; Cofs Harbour Hardwoods (Trading) Pty Ltd v Wall (1989) 6 BCL 215 [NSWCA]; Fletcher Construction Aust Ltd v Varnsdorf Pty Ltd [1998] 3 VR ......
  • Criminal Procedure, Evidence and Sentencing
    • Singapore
    • Singapore Academy of Law Annual Review No. 2021, December 2021
    • 1 December 2021
    ...486 at 486–494, paras 15.1–15.23. 25 Syed Suhail bin Syed Zin v Public Prosecutor [2021] 2 SLR 377 at [67]. 26 [2021] 2 SLR 1169. 27 [1954] 1 WLR 1489. 28 Of non-availability, relevance and credibility. 29 Miya Manik v Public Prosecutor [2021] 2 SLR 1169 at [82]. 30 Miya Manik v Public Pros......
  • Intellectual Property Law
    • Singapore
    • Singapore Academy of Law Annual Review No. 2021, December 2021
    • 1 December 2021
    ...2014 Rev Ed. 126 Yitai (Shanghai) Plastic Co, Ltd v Charlotte Pipe and Foundry Co [2021] SGHC 198 at [26]. 127 [2011] 1 SLR 1287. 128 [1954] 1 WLR 1489. 129 Yitai (Shanghai) Plastic Co, Ltd v Charlotte Pipe and Foundry Co [2021] SGHC 198 at [30]. 130 [1996] RPC 233. 131 Yitai (Shanghai) Pla......
  • Case Note
    • Singapore
    • Singapore Academy of Law Journal No. 2019, December - January 2019
    • 1 December 2019
    ...of decision merely to challenge the findings of fact made by the trial judge on the evidence before him. 1 Cap 68, 2012 Rev Ed. 2 [1954] 1 WLR 1489. These are similar to those stated in R v Parks [1961] 1 WLR 1484: that the court would only exercise its discretion to admit further evidence ......
  • Get Started for Free