London Borough of Brent v Smart

London Borough of Brent v Smart

The new evidence relied upon by Mr Smart did not satisfy the Ladd v Marshall criteria as it was not shown to be unavailable at trial with reasonable diligence and was not apparently credible. The interests of justice did not require a re-trial. The appeal was therefore dismissed.

Parties
Claimant/respondent: The Mayor & Burgesses of London Borough of Brent; Defendant/appellant: Mark Smart
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
02 March 2005
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal Judgment
Outcome
appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Secure Tenancy, Sub Letting, Admission of New Evidence, Possession Proceedings
Landlord and Tenant Housing Law Secure Tenancy Sub Letting Admission of New Evidence Possession Proceedings

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 4 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

The Mayor & Burgesses of London Borough of Brent

Claimant/respondent

Mark Smart

Defendant/appellant

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether new evidence should be admitted on appeal under the Ladd v Marshall principles
  2. 2 Whether the trial judge erred in finding a sub-letting and ordering possession
  3. 3 Whether the interests of justice require a re-trial

Ratio Decidendi

The new evidence relied upon by Mr Smart did not satisfy the Ladd v Marshall criteria as it was not shown to be unavailable at trial with reasonable diligence and was not apparently credible. The interests of justice did not require a re-trial. The appeal was therefore dismissed.

Court Disposition

appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed
  • Stay lifted