Prentice v Hereward Housing Association & Anor [2001] EWCA Civ 437 (22 March 2001)
The fresh evidence from local residents could not have been obtained with reasonable diligence, is sufficiently cogent, and would have an important influence on the result; therefore, it should be admitted and a retrial ordered.
- Citation
- [2001] EWCA Civ 437
- Parties
- Respondent/claimant: Gary Horace Prentice; First Appellant/first Defendant: Hereward Housing Association; Second Appellant/second Defendant: East Cambridgeshire District Council
- Jurisdiction
- England and Wales
- Judgment Date
- 22 March 2001
- Procedural Posture
- Personal Injury Appeal / Appeal From High Court Judgment
- Outcome
- appeal allowed
- Legal Topics
- Occupiers Liability, Negligence, Admission of Fresh Evidence, Retrial, Fraudulent Claims
Case Brief
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Gary Horace Prentice
Respondent/claimant
Hereward Housing Association
First Appellant/first Defendant
East Cambridgeshire District Council
Second Appellant/second Defendant
Procedural Posture
Personal Injury Appeal / Appeal From High Court Judgment
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether fresh evidence should be admitted on appeal
- 2 Whether the defendant could have obtained the evidence with reasonable diligence
- 3 Whether the evidence would have an important influence on the result
Ratio Decidendi
The fresh evidence from local residents could not have been obtained with reasonable diligence, is sufficiently cogent, and would have an important influence on the result; therefore, it should be admitted and a retrial ordered.
Court Disposition
appeal allowed
Orders
- new trial ordered
- previous order set aside except paragraph 3
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
Sign in to read
Sign in to read the full judgment text
Sign in to read the full judgment text. Downloads and additional research tools may depend on your plan.
Sign in to read the full judgment