“…ent that share depreciation is not a recognisable head of loss. The evidence should be admitted – it satisfies the second and third criteria in Ladd v Marshall [1954] 1 W.L.R. 1489and the first criterion (unavailability at time of trial) should not be an obstacle, given the situation Mr Tinkler found himself in with the late amendment to …”
“…or refusing the application that was made on the eve of the hearing. The reasons can be shortly stated. They rest on the familiar principles in Ladd v Marshall [1954] 1 W.L.R. 1489, Hertfordshire Investments Ltd. v Bubb [2000] W.L.R. 2318 and E v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2004] Q.B. 1044. As Hale L.J., as she then was, s…”