17 Aug 2006
TADANO SOUTH CHINA CO LTD v. BRIGHTFORD LTD AND ANOTHER
- Citation
- TADANO SOUTH CHINA CO LTD v. BRIGHTFORD LTD AND ANOTHER
- Court
- Court of Appeal
- Case number
- CACV152/2006
The appeal was dismissed because the appellant failed to satisfy the Ladd v Marshall criteria for admitting fresh evidence and had not made full and frank disclosure of his means or timely pleaded the no‑demand defence; the judge's order making leave to defend conditional on payment into court of the guaranteed amount was a proper exercise of judicial discretion and not vulnerable to appellate interference.