James & Charles Dodd (A Firm) v O'Callaghan [2002] EWCA Civ 216 (5 February 2002)

The new evidence could have been obtained with reasonable diligence before trial and, even if admitted, would not have affected the outcome as the mortgagee took reasonable steps to obtain a proper price for the property.

Source-derived case information.

Citation: [2002] EWCA Civ 216
Parties: Respondents/claimants: James & Charles Dodd (A Firm); Appellant/defendant: Kevin James O'Callaghan
Jurisdiction: England and Wales
Judgment Date: 05 February 2002
Procedural Posture: Civil Appeal / Application for Permission to Appeal
Outcome: Application dismissed
Legal Topics: Mortgage Enforcement, Admissibility of Fresh Evidence on Appeal, Duty to Obtain Proper Price on Sale of Mortgaged Property

Property Law Civil Procedure Mortgage Enforcement Admissibility of Fresh Evidence on Appeal Duty to Obtain Proper Price on Sale of Mortgaged Property

Source-derived case record

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 2 Authorities cited 4 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2

Parties

James & Charles Dodd (A Firm)

Respondents/claimants

Kevin James O'Callaghan

Appellant/defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Application for Permission to Appeal

Legal Issues

1 Whether new evidence should be admitted on appeal under Ladd v Marshall principles
2 Whether the mortgagee discharged its duty to obtain a proper price on sale

Ratio Decidendi

Court Disposition

Application dismissed

Orders

Application for permission to appeal dismissed
Costs awarded against the applicant, summarily assessed at £5,027.25

About this LexChat collection

Publisher and coverage

LexChat is published by Esheria. Coverage reflects the case law currently mapped from identified source collections; it may be incomplete, delayed, or later corrected. The official source controls where it differs from this research page.

AI and research method

Source-derived facts are shown separately from AI-generated material. If an AI summary is available, it is explicitly labelled and remains a non-authoritative research aid.

Corrections and reporting

Report a source mismatch, factual issue, personal-data concern, or licensing question to support@esheria.co.ke. Include this page's URL and the supporting official source so the record can be reviewed, corrected, restricted, or withdrawn.

Legal-information disclaimer

LexChat provides legal information and research tools, not legal advice. Verify currency, status, citations, and jurisdiction with authoritative sources and a qualified professional where appropriate.