Miroslaw Szymczak v Nafeesa Begum Limited

Fresh evidence will be admitted on appeal only where the cumulative requirements in Ladd v Marshall [1954] 1 WLR 1489 are met. The party must show that the evidence could not, with reasonable diligence, have been produced below; that it is credible; and that it would probably have had an important influence on the result.

Evidence which may be credible and outcome-changing remains inadmissible if it could reasonably have been obtained for the first-instance hearing. An appellant must present the evidence needed to prove the case at that hearing.

Miroslaw Szymczak, a former tenant, applied to the First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) for a rent repayment order against his landlord, Nafeesa Begum Limited. He alleged that the house was an unlicensed house in multiple occupation on 30 September 2022, the only date within the statutory 12-month period that overlapped with his tenancy.

The First-tier Tribunal dismissed the application because, despite doubts about the landlord's evidence, it was not satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that the relevant offence had been committed. On appeal from the decision under reference CHI/00ML/HMF/2023/0028, the appellant sought to rely on tenancy agreements obtained after the hearing. Permission was conditional upon his being allowed to adduce that fresh evidence.

1. The application to adduce fresh evidence failed, and the appeal could not proceed. The three requirements stated in Ladd v Marshall [1954] 1 WLR 1489 are cumulative. Fresh evidence may be admitted only where it could not with reasonable diligence have been obtained for the First-tier Tribunal hearing, is credible, and would probably have had an important influence on the result.

2. The appellant did not satisfy the reasonable-diligence requirement. He asked Ms Kennedy for her agreement only three weeks before the hearing, despite having previously been in contact with her. She provided it readily when she later saw the request. He made no attempt to recover Ms Coates's contact details or contact her before the hearing. The Tribunal inferred that the documents could have been obtained in time had reasonable steps been taken.

3. The agreements were apparently credible and might have influenced the outcome if accepted as genuine. That did not cure the failure at the first and mandatory stage of the test.

4. The allegation that the landlord had forged another occupancy agreement was outside the permission to appeal and was not convincing. In any event, the agreement had been withdrawn and the First-tier Tribunal made no finding that it was genuine. Its decision rested on the appellant's failure to prove, beyond reasonable doubt, the alleged licensing offence, rather than on that document.

• Upper Tribunal (Lands Chamber): refused permission to adduce fresh evidence and held that the conditional appeal could not proceed.
• First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber): refused a rent repayment order: CHI/00ML/HMF/2023/0028.