Couwenbergh v Valkova

Couwenbergh v Valkova

The Court of Appeal held that the three Ladd v Marshall criteria for admitting fresh evidence were satisfied: the evidence could not have been obtained with reasonable diligence, it was apparently credible, and it would probably have an important influence on the result. The evidence raised a real issue as to due execution of the will and potentially fraud on the court. Therefore, the appeal was allowed, the order of Carnwath J was set aside, and the matter was remitted for rehearing.

Parties
Claimant/appellant: Petrus Couwenbergh; Defendant/respondent: Bilyana Angelova Valkova
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
07 February 2005
Procedural Posture
Probate Appeal / Appeal From High Court (chancery Division) to Court of Appeal
Outcome
Appeal allowed; order of Carnwath J set aside; matter remitted for rehearing.
Legal Topics
Admission of Fresh Evidence, Due Execution of Wills, Costs Orders, Fraud on the Court
Probate Civil Procedure Admission of Fresh Evidence Due Execution of Wills Costs Orders Fraud on the Court

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 6 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Petrus Couwenbergh

Claimant/appellant

Bilyana Angelova Valkova

Defendant/respondent

Procedural Posture

Probate Appeal / Appeal From High Court (chancery Division) to Court of Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether fresh evidence regarding due execution of the will should be admitted on appeal
  2. 2 Whether the will was duly executed in accordance with legal requirements
  3. 3 Whether the costs order against the claimant should stand

Ratio Decidendi

The Court of Appeal held that the three Ladd v Marshall criteria for admitting fresh evidence were satisfied: the evidence could not have been obtained with reasonable diligence, it was apparently credible, and it would probably have an important influence on the result. The evidence raised a real issue as to due execution of the will and potentially fraud on the court. Therefore, the appeal was allowed, the order of Carnwath J was set aside, and the matter was remitted for rehearing.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; order of Carnwath J set aside; matter remitted for rehearing.

Orders

  • Order of 31 July 1998 set aside, including costs order against claimant.
  • Costs of the trial before Carnwath J reserved to the rehearing judge.