King (t/a Oakland Services UK) v Job

Permission to appeal may be granted where the proposed appeal has a real prospect of success. Where fresh evidence is sought, the principles in Ladd v Marshall remain relevant under the Civil Procedure Rules, although they are not binding. Special considerations may arise where the evidence suggests a strong prima facie case that the court was deliberately misled. The Court of Appeal may grant permission and leave the admissibility of the fresh evidence to be determined at the appeal hearing.

The claimant applied in proceedings concerning the respondent’s claimed possessory right to occupy premises. His Honour Judge Wakefield concluded that the respondent had ceased to occupy and possess the property continuously between 1988 and 1992, and dismissed the relevant basis of his claim.

The respondent sought permission to appeal and permission to rely on documents discovered after trial. He explained that access to the documents had been impeded by his imprisonment. The documents included correspondence from the claimant referring to the respondent’s address as the premises in issue. The central question was whether the fresh evidence created a real prospect of success and should be admitted for the appeal.

1. Permission granted. The judge’s findings appeared unlikely to be overturned without fresh evidence, but the documents discovered by the respondent created a real prospect that the Court of Appeal might admit them and that the appeal might then succeed.
2. The principles in Ladd v Marshall remained relevant under the Civil Procedure Rules, although they were not binding. The court was required to consider the interests of justice when deciding whether fresh evidence should be admitted.
3. In Prentice v Hereward Housing Association, the court had applied those principles. The judgment also recognised, following Skone v Skone, that special considerations arose where there was a strong prima facie case of wilful deception of the court.
4. The court did not determine the strength or ultimate admissibility of the evidence. It granted leave to appeal and leave to the Court of Appeal to determine whether the fresh evidence should be admitted.
5. Costs were to be costs in the appeal. If the parties could not agree to continue the stay, the district judge was to decide.

• His Honour Judge Wakefield: Judgment given on 14 June 2001. He found that the respondent had ceased to occupy and possess the premises continuously between 1988 and 1992.
• Court of Appeal (Civil Division): Permission to appeal and permission to rely on fresh evidence granted. The admissibility of the evidence was left to the appeal hearing.