Ladd v Marshall [1954] EWCA Civ 1

Mr Ladd claimed he paid £1,000 cash 'under the counter' to Mr Marshall for property but Marshall denied receiving it. After losing at trial, Ladd sought to appeal using fresh evidence from Marshall's ex-wife who now claimed she lied at trial. The Court of Appeal refused, establishing the three-part test for admitting fresh evidence on appeal.

Facts

Mr Marshall owned a bungalow with a price control condition limiting resale to approximately £1,500. He offered it for sale at £3,600. Mr Ladd negotiated to purchase the property, and a document was drawn up showing a sale price of £2,500 with a £50 deposit. Mr Ladd claimed he additionally paid £1,000 in cash ‘under the counter’ to circumvent the price control, but received no receipt as Marshall allegedly said ‘My word is my bond’. The sale fell through when Marshall’s solicitors advised he did not wish to proceed. Ladd sued for return of the £1,000.

Evidence at Trial

Ladd called himself, Mr Warren (who allegedly witnessed the payment), and Miss Andrews (who helped count the money beforehand). Mrs Marshall, the defendant’s wife, was called as a reluctant witness but claimed she could not remember seeing any money pass. The trial judge, Mr Justice Glyn-Jones, rejected the plaintiff’s evidence entirely, preferring the defendant’s denial on every point of conflict.

Issues

1. Whether the trial was unsatisfactory such that a new trial should be ordered.

2. Whether fresh evidence from Mrs Marshall (who now claimed she lied at trial and had witnessed the payment) should be admitted on appeal.

Judgment

Lord Justice Denning set out the test for admitting fresh evidence on appeal:

In order to justify the reception of fresh evidence or a new trial, three conditions must be fulfilled: first, it must be shown that the evidence could not have been obtained with reasonable diligence for use at the trial: second, the evidence must be such that, if given, it would probably have an important influence on the result of the case, though it need not be decisive: thirdly, the evidence must be such as is presumably to be believed, or in other words, it must be apparently credible, though it need not be incontrovertible.

Regarding witnesses who confess to lying, Denning LJ stated:

A confessed liar cannot usually be accepted as being credible. To justify the reception of the fresh evidence, some good reason must be shown why a lie was told in the first instance: and good ground given for thinking the witness will tell the truth on the second occasion.

The Court found Mrs Marshall’s claim of coercion by her husband was not substantiated and she was not credible. Lord Justice Hodson emphasised the principle of finality in litigation and agreed the fresh evidence did not meet the test of being ‘presumably to be believed’. Lord Justice Parker concurred, noting Mrs Marshall had failed to prove any ground such as bribery or coercion for her original false testimony.

Implications

This case established the authoritative three-part test for admitting fresh evidence on appeal in English civil procedure, commonly known as the ‘Ladd v Marshall criteria’. The test requires: (1) the evidence could not have been obtained with reasonable diligence for use at trial; (2) the evidence would probably have an important influence on the result; and (3) the evidence must be apparently credible. The case demonstrates the courts’ strong commitment to finality of litigation and the high threshold for disturbing trial verdicts based on credibility findings. It remains a leading authority on appellate procedure regarding fresh evidence.

Verdict: Appeal dismissed with costs. The application to admit fresh evidence was refused and the original judgment for the defendant was upheld.

Source: Ladd v Marshall [1954] EWCA Civ 1