Perry v Abraham [2003] JRC 108 (01 July 2003)
- Citation
- [2003] JRC 108
- Status
- Judgment
- Jurisdiction
- Jersey
- Posture
- Application to Adduce Fresh Evidence / Pre Judgment, Post Trial
More details
- Posture
- Application to Adduce Fresh Evidence / Pre Judgment, Post Trial
On this page
Professional case brief
Research organized from the available case record
01
Holding and result
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.
02
Material facts
Parties
Applicant
Applicant Counsel: Advocate MacRaeRespondent
Respondent03
Procedural history
Posture
Application to Adduce Fresh Evidence / Pre Judgment, Post Trial
04
Questions and positions
Legal issues
Whether the court should admit fresh evidence after trial but before judgment is delivered
Party arguments
- Applicant
- Applicant seeks to introduce new evidence from the Land Registrar in Loulé, arguing it is material to the decision.
- Respondent
- Respondent, through Advocate MacRae, does not agree to the translation and contests its clarity and materiality.
05
Court’s reasoning
Legal principles
- 01
P-v-P (14th April, 2002) Jersey Unreported [2002/80]
The court has jurisdiction to admit further evidence before judgment is delivered, but such evidence must be materially important and likely to affect the decision.
06
Ratio, limits and disposition
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.
Obiter and limits
- Experts are in disagreement and the effect of the new evidence is uncertain.
- The translation provided is unofficial and unclear.
Court disposition
application refused
- Application to admit fresh evidence is declined.
Source and reliance status
Official court record
This page organises the available record for research. Confirm quotations, current status, and subsequent treatment against the official source before relying on the case.
Judgment reading view
Judgment text
The complete available source text.
Court record
Judgment
JUDGMENT THE Commissioner: 1. This is an application to hear fresh evidence in a trial that has run for two years and has been adjourned on several occasions. The application is made at the eleventh hour as judgment is to be delivered tomorrow at 9.00am.
2. The Court clearly has the jurisdiction to hear further evidence before judgement is delivered. We have considered JEP -v- Qatar (2 nd December, 2002) Jersey Unreported [2002/227], and in particular the recent case of P-v- P (14 th April 2002) Jersey Unreported [2002/80]. In that case the learned Deputy Bailiff made it very clear that the new evidence must affect the decision that is about to be made.
3. The Land Registrar in Loulé has made a decision on 30 th May, one month ago. The Court was only made aware of the decision of the Land Registrar in the last few days. I decided to sit at very short notice to see whether there was anything that appeared to be so materially important that I should take it to the learned Jurats and postpone delivery of the Judgment.
4. After careful reflection I can see no such important material. The translation that we have received is not an official translation and it is not agreed by Advocate MacRae nor, I must say, is it clear on careful reading as to its effect.
5. The experts are locked in disagreement and we have no idea how they would each react to this present decision which in any event will not affect the new P. G. U which is about to be published. In my discretion I decline to take the matter further. Authorities JEP-v-Qatar (2 nd December, 2002) Jersey Unreported; [2002/227] P-v-P (14 th April, 2002) Jersey Unreported; [2002/80]. Page Last Updated: 23 Jun 2016 BAILII: Copyright Policy | Disclaimers | Privacy Policy | Feedback | Donate to BAILII
Case-aware research
Ask AI about this case
The judgment and available research above are public. New questions open in a separate private conversation grounded in this case.