Steel & Ors v Newservice Ltd.

Steel & Ors v Newservice Ltd.

The applications for fresh evidence and disclosure were refused because the applicant was aware of the relevant facts before trial, made a tactical decision not to pursue them, and the evidence was not new or unavailable with reasonable diligence at the time of trial.

Parties
Applicant/appellant: Mr Whiteman (Steel & Ors); Respondent: Newservice Ltd
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
15 May 2007
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Application for Fresh Evidence and Disclosure on Appeal
Outcome
Applications refused
Legal Topics
Leasehold Reform, Service of Notices, Fresh Evidence on Appeal, Disclosure
Property Law Civil Procedure Leasehold Reform Service of Notices Fresh Evidence on Appeal Disclosure

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 2 Authorities cited 1 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Mr Whiteman (Steel & Ors)

Applicant/appellant

Newservice Ltd

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Application for Fresh Evidence and Disclosure on Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether fresh evidence should be admitted on appeal regarding service of a counter-notice under the Leasehold Reform Housing and Urban Development Act 1993
  2. 2 Whether disclosure should be ordered from the respondent's former solicitors and DX Network Services regarding service of the counter-notice

Ratio Decidendi

The applications for fresh evidence and disclosure were refused because the applicant was aware of the relevant facts before trial, made a tactical decision not to pursue them, and the evidence was not new or unavailable with reasonable diligence at the time of trial.

Court Disposition

Applications refused

Orders

  • Applications for fresh evidence and disclosure refused