Perry v Abraham [2003] JRC 108 (01 July 2003)

The evidence sought to be introduced is not materially important, is not agreed upon, and its effect is unclear; therefore, the application to admit fresh evidence is refused.

Citation: [2003] JRC 108
Parties: Applicant: Applicant; Respondent: Respondent
Jurisdiction: Jersey
Judgment Date: 01 July 2003
Procedural Posture: Application to Adduce Fresh Evidence / Pre Judgment, Post Trial
Outcome: application refused
Legal Topics: Adducing Fresh Evidence, Jurisdiction to Admit Evidence, Timing of Applications

Civil Procedure Adducing Fresh Evidence Jurisdiction to Admit Evidence Timing of Applications

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 2 Party arguments 2

Parties

Applicant

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Application to Adduce Fresh Evidence / Pre Judgment, Post Trial

Legal Issues

1 Whether the court should admit fresh evidence after trial but before judgment is delivered

Ratio Decidendi

The evidence sought to be introduced is not materially important, is not agreed upon, and its effect is unclear; therefore, the application to admit fresh evidence is refused.

Court Disposition

application refused

Orders

Application to admit fresh evidence is declined.