Ladd v Marshall
Encyclopedia
Ladd v Marshall [1954] EWCA Civ 1 is an English
Court of Appeal
judgment, which established the criteria for the Court to accept fresh evidence in a case on which a judgement has already been delivered.
, owned a piece of land in Ashford, Middlesex, consisting of a bungalow
attached to a pig holding. The bungalow had been built under a licence from the Local Authority, who had imposed a condition that the maximum price for which Marshall could sell the bungalow was approximately £1500. In 1952, despite the licence condition, Marshall offered the property for sale with an asking price of £3600, and Mr Ladd, the plaintiff
, expressed an interest in buying it.
Marshall told Ladd that the sale price was limited to £2500 (presumably £1500 for the bungalow and £1000 for the land, although Marshall did not make this explicit), and a document was drawn up for a sale at this price, with a £50 deposit. However, according to Ladd, he also paid Marshall an additional £1000 in cash to make up the full sale price. This cash was allegedly counted out "under the table" (as Lord Denning put it - indeed, according to Ladd's testimony, the cash was literally counted out on the carpet rather than on the table where the deposit was handed over) at the bungalow in the presence of Ladd, a friend of his (Mr Warren), Marshall, and Mrs Marshall, Marshall's wife. Marshall did not give Ladd a receipt
for the extra £1000.
On 11 June 1952, Marshall's solicitors informed Ladd that Marshall no longer wanted to proceed with the sale of the property.
es.
Mrs Marshall was reluctant to give evidence against her husband - she would have been able to refuse to do so in a criminal trial, but, in a civil trial, she had no such immunity
- and, although she confirmed that a transaction had taken place, she claimed not to remember any details of it whatsoever. Ladd's counsel did not apply for Mrs Marshall to be treated as a hostile witness
so that she could be cross-examined, and the first-instance judge (Glynn-Jones J), who did not accept the unsupported testimony of Ladd and Warren, dismissed the case.
Ladd did not appeal against the judgment initially. However, in May 1954, Mr and Mrs Marshall were divorce
d, and Mrs Marshall contacted Ladd's solicitors to inform them that her earlier testimony had been false, and she was now prepared to state in court that the £1000 had been handed over. Ladd applied to the Court of Appeal for Glynn-Jones J's judgement to be overturned, and for Mrs Marshall's new evidence to be considered by the court.
LJ
, Hodson
LJ and Parker
LJ, allowed Ladd's appeal to be heard, but refused to admit the testimony of Mrs Marshall. Lord Denning laid down the definitive rule for the admissibility of new evidence:
Mrs Marshall's new evidence failed the "apparently credible" test, as, according to Lord Denning, "a confessed liar cannot usually be accepted as being credible", and there was no satisfactory evidence that Mrs Marshall had been coerced by her husband to lie at the first-instance trial, and no other good reason for her doing so. Hodson and Parker LJJ agreed with Lord Denning on this issue, citing the earlier case of Brown v Dean [1910] AC 373, where Lord Loreburn
had stated the principle as: "[new evidence] must at least be such as is presumably to be believed, and if believed would be conclusive." Their Lordships considered that "conclusive", in Lord Loreburn's statement, was too strong a word; Lord Denning's formulation of the principle ("an important influence on the result") was adopted by the courts in all future cases.
The basic principle that guides all such decisions is expressed by the Legal Latin maxim interest reipublicae ut sit finis litium - "It is in the interests of the state that there be an end to litigation".
The grounds on which the Court will make such an order are still based on Ladd v Marshall. In the case of Muscat v Health Professions Council [2009] EWCA Civ 1090, Smith LJ stated "The Ladd v Marshall principles were indeed at the heart of the exercise of discretion [to admit new evidence]."
Court of Appeal
Court of Appeal of England and Wales
The Court of Appeal of England and Wales is the second most senior court in the English legal system, with only the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom above it...
judgment, which established the criteria for the Court to accept fresh evidence in a case on which a judgement has already been delivered.
Facts
Mr Marshall, the defendantDefendant
A defendant or defender is any party who is required to answer the complaint of a plaintiff or pursuer in a civil lawsuit before a court, or any party who has been formally charged or accused of violating a criminal statute...
, owned a piece of land in Ashford, Middlesex, consisting of a bungalow
Bungalow
A bungalow is a type of house, with varying meanings across the world. Common features to many of these definitions include being detached, low-rise , and the use of verandahs...
attached to a pig holding. The bungalow had been built under a licence from the Local Authority, who had imposed a condition that the maximum price for which Marshall could sell the bungalow was approximately £1500. In 1952, despite the licence condition, Marshall offered the property for sale with an asking price of £3600, and Mr Ladd, the plaintiff
Plaintiff
A plaintiff , also known as a claimant or complainant, is the term used in some jurisdictions for the party who initiates a lawsuit before a court...
, expressed an interest in buying it.
Marshall told Ladd that the sale price was limited to £2500 (presumably £1500 for the bungalow and £1000 for the land, although Marshall did not make this explicit), and a document was drawn up for a sale at this price, with a £50 deposit. However, according to Ladd, he also paid Marshall an additional £1000 in cash to make up the full sale price. This cash was allegedly counted out "under the table" (as Lord Denning put it - indeed, according to Ladd's testimony, the cash was literally counted out on the carpet rather than on the table where the deposit was handed over) at the bungalow in the presence of Ladd, a friend of his (Mr Warren), Marshall, and Mrs Marshall, Marshall's wife. Marshall did not give Ladd a receipt
Receipt
A receipt is a written acknowledgment that a specified article or sum of money has been received as an exchange for goods or services. The receipt is evidence of purchase of the property or service obtained in the exchange.-Printed:...
for the extra £1000.
On 11 June 1952, Marshall's solicitors informed Ladd that Marshall no longer wanted to proceed with the sale of the property.
First-instance trial
The sale having fallen through, Ladd was under no obligation to pay Marshall the "legitimate" price of £2500. However, he issued proceedings against Marshall to recover the £1000 that he claimed to have paid. Marshall denied that there was any such arrangement and that any cash (apart from the £50 deposit) had been handed over. At the trial, in addition to his own testimony, Ladd called Mr Warren and Mrs Marshall as witnessWitness
A witness is someone who has firsthand knowledge about an event, or in the criminal justice systems usually a crime, through his or her senses and can help certify important considerations about the crime or event. A witness who has seen the event first hand is known as an eyewitness...
es.
Mrs Marshall was reluctant to give evidence against her husband - she would have been able to refuse to do so in a criminal trial, but, in a civil trial, she had no such immunity
Spousal privilege
In the law of the United States, the spousal privilege comprises two separate privileges, the marital confidences privilege and the spousal testimonial privilege....
- and, although she confirmed that a transaction had taken place, she claimed not to remember any details of it whatsoever. Ladd's counsel did not apply for Mrs Marshall to be treated as a hostile witness
Hostile witness
A hostile witness is a witness in a trial who testifies for the opposing party or a witness who offers adverse testimony to the calling party during direct examination.A witness called by the opposing party is presumed hostile...
so that she could be cross-examined, and the first-instance judge (Glynn-Jones J), who did not accept the unsupported testimony of Ladd and Warren, dismissed the case.
Ladd did not appeal against the judgment initially. However, in May 1954, Mr and Mrs Marshall were divorce
Divorce
Divorce is the final termination of a marital union, canceling the legal duties and responsibilities of marriage and dissolving the bonds of matrimony between the parties...
d, and Mrs Marshall contacted Ladd's solicitors to inform them that her earlier testimony had been false, and she was now prepared to state in court that the £1000 had been handed over. Ladd applied to the Court of Appeal for Glynn-Jones J's judgement to be overturned, and for Mrs Marshall's new evidence to be considered by the court.
Judgment on appeal
The Court of Appeal, consisting of DenningAlfred Denning, Baron Denning
Alfred Thompson "Tom" Denning, Baron Denning, OM, PC, DL, KC , commonly known as Lord Denning, was a British soldier, mathematician, lawyer and judge. He gained degrees in mathematics and law at Oxford University, although his studies were disrupted by his service in the First World War...
LJ
Lord Justice of Appeal
A Lord Justice of Appeal is an ordinary judge of the Court of Appeal of England and Wales, the court that hears appeals from the High Court of Justice, and represents the second highest level of judge in the courts of England and Wales-Appointment:...
, Hodson
Charles Hodson, Baron Hodson
Francis Lord Charlton Hodson, Baron Hodson PC, KC, MC , always known as Charles Hodson, was a British judge.The son of Reverend Thomas Hodson, he was educated in Cheltenham College...
LJ and Parker
Hubert Parker, Baron Parker of Waddington
Hubert Lister Parker, Baron Parker of Waddington PC was a British Judge who served as Lord Chief Justice of England from 1958 to 1971...
LJ, allowed Ladd's appeal to be heard, but refused to admit the testimony of Mrs Marshall. Lord Denning laid down the definitive rule for the admissibility of new evidence:
Mrs Marshall's new evidence failed the "apparently credible" test, as, according to Lord Denning, "a confessed liar cannot usually be accepted as being credible", and there was no satisfactory evidence that Mrs Marshall had been coerced by her husband to lie at the first-instance trial, and no other good reason for her doing so. Hodson and Parker LJJ agreed with Lord Denning on this issue, citing the earlier case of Brown v Dean [1910] AC 373, where Lord Loreburn
Robert Reid, 1st Earl Loreburn
Robert Threshie Reid, 1st Earl Loreburn GCMG, PC, QC was a British lawyer, judge and Liberal politician. He served as Lord Chancellor between 1905 and 1912.-Background and education:...
had stated the principle as: "[new evidence] must at least be such as is presumably to be believed, and if believed would be conclusive." Their Lordships considered that "conclusive", in Lord Loreburn's statement, was too strong a word; Lord Denning's formulation of the principle ("an important influence on the result") was adopted by the courts in all future cases.
The basic principle that guides all such decisions is expressed by the Legal Latin maxim interest reipublicae ut sit finis litium - "It is in the interests of the state that there be an end to litigation".
Subsequent cases
The Civil Procedure Rules (Rule 52.11 para 2b) state "Unless it orders otherwise, the appeal court will not receive evidence which was not before the lower court."The grounds on which the Court will make such an order are still based on Ladd v Marshall. In the case of Muscat v Health Professions Council [2009] EWCA Civ 1090, Smith LJ stated "The Ladd v Marshall principles were indeed at the heart of the exercise of discretion [to admit new evidence]."