Malhan v Malhan [2001] EWCA Civ 952 (18 June 2001)

Malhan v Malhan [2001] EWCA Civ 952 (18 June 2001)

The newly discovered evidence regarding the respondent's ownership of 198 Martindale Road does not meet the Phosphate Sewage test, as it is not certain that it would have changed the outcome of the original trial, and there are significant gaps in the evidence. The applicant's amended statement of case does not provide sufficient grounds to set aside the previous judgment.

Citation
[2001] EWCA Civ 952
Parties
Applicant/claimant: Surinder Kumar Malhan; Respondent/defendant: Iris Malhan
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
18 June 2001
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Renewed Application for Permission to Appeal After Initial Refusal
Outcome
Application refused; previous order to be drawn up and sealed.
Legal Topics
Setting Aside Judgments, Beneficial Interest in Property, New Evidence on Appeal, Cohabitation and Property Rights
Civil Procedure Property Law Setting Aside Judgments Beneficial Interest in Property New Evidence on Appeal Cohabitation and Property Rights

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 1 Authorities cited 1 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Surinder Kumar Malhan

Applicant/claimant

Iris Malhan

Respondent/defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Renewed Application for Permission to Appeal After Initial Refusal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether newly discovered evidence regarding the respondent's ownership of another property justifies setting aside the previous judgment under the Phosphate Sewage test
  2. 2 Whether the applicant's amended statement of case meets the requirements for reopening the judgment

Ratio Decidendi

The newly discovered evidence regarding the respondent's ownership of 198 Martindale Road does not meet the Phosphate Sewage test, as it is not certain that it would have changed the outcome of the original trial, and there are significant gaps in the evidence. The applicant's amended statement of case does not provide sufficient grounds to set aside the previous judgment.

Court Disposition

Application refused; previous order to be drawn up and sealed.

Orders

  • Order refusing renewed application for permission to appeal to be drawn up and sealed.