Morgan v McLaughlin

Permission to appeal against findings of fact and damages will be refused where proposed fresh evidence does not satisfy the relevant criteria. The applicant must show that the evidence could not reasonably have been obtained for trial, that it would probably have had an important influence on the result, and that it is apparently credible. Evidence bearing only on background matters or damages does not justify reopening liability. A police report may corroborate the fact of a complaint, but does not establish its truth. Permission also requires a real prospect of success or another compelling reason for the appeal to be heard.

John Morgan brought proceedings concerning allegedly defamatory allegations made by Sonia McLaughlin in correspondence sent to him and to organisations connected with Irish dancing. After a lengthy trial, His Honour Judge Tetlow found the allegations false and malicious, awarding £10,000 compensation and £10,000 aggravated damages.

McLaughlin applied for permission to appeal. The proposed fresh evidence concerned the Irish dancing Commission, Morgan’s later professional success, and the timing and circumstances of a police report about the underlying incident. The central issue was whether that material justified appellate intervention in the findings or damages assessment.

1. Permission refused. The Court of Appeal would not ordinarily interfere with clear findings of fact made after a careful trial and detailed judgment. Permission required a real prospect of success or another compelling reason for the appeal to be heard.
2. For fresh evidence, the relevant considerations were whether it could not reasonably have been obtained for trial, whether it would probably have had an important influence on the result, and whether it was apparently credible. It need not be finally decisive or incontrovertible.
3. Evidence concerning the Commission’s constitution and operation did not concern the issues decided at trial, which principally involved what had happened and who was responsible.
4. Evidence of Morgan’s later professional success related, at most, to damages. It did not negate reputational damage on the trial judge’s findings, affect liability, or disclose a realistic basis for reducing the award.
5. The police material was credible, but it would not probably have influenced the result. The trial judge had treated the report as proof only that a report had been made, not proof that the underlying allegations were true.
6. The court found no real prospect of success and no other compelling reason for the appeal to be heard. Permission was refused.

• Court of Appeal (Civil Division)—permission to appeal refused on 22 October 2001.
• Manchester County Court—His Honour Judge Tetlow, on 15 March 2001, found the claim established and awarded £10,000 compensation and £10,000 aggravated damages.