- Applied — Duchess of Bedford House RTM Company Limited & Ors v Campden Hill Gate Limited 2023-12-08
“…There was no dispute about the test to be applied in relation to the admission of fresh evidence on appeal pursuant to CPR 52.21.(2). In Terluk v Berezovsky [2011] EWCA Civ 1534 (CA) at [31]-[33], Laws LJ (with whom Rafferty LJ and the Chancellor of the High Court agreed) summarised the principles to be applied when determining such ap…”
- Cited — Halil Celik v Secretary of State for the Home Department 2023-07-31
“…ses its discretion to permit such evidence: see CPR 52.21. The principles governing the exercise of discretion are set out in cases such as Terluk v Berezovsky [2011] EWCA Civ 1534. The further witness statement does not satisfy those principles. In particular, the evidence would not have an important influence on the appeal. So far as it…”
- Considered — AB v Worcestershire County Council & Anor 2023-05-17
“…shall [1954] 1 WLR 1489 continue to be used in determining whether as a matter of discretion evidence should be admitted: see, for example, Terluk v Berezovsky [2011] EWCA Civ 1534. We considered the new evidence and heard submissions on that evidence at the hearing. I would not admit it. First, the evidence was available to the appellant…”
- Considered — Sahra Moge v London Brough of Ealing 2023-04-27
“…principles which are applicable to an application to adduce fresh evidence on an appeal are well known and were considered by this court in Terluk v Berezovsky [2011] EWCA Civ 1534. At [31]-[32], Laws LJ stated, (some citations omitted),…”
- Cited — SWP, R (on the application of) v Secretary of State for the Home Department 2023-04-25
“…esult of the case (though it need not be decisive); and (3) the evidence is apparently credible though it need not be incontrovertible. See Terluk v Berezovsky [2011] EWCA Civ 1534, at paras. 31-32 (Laws LJ).…”
- Cited — Sophia Cannon v Bar Standards Board 2023-03-16
“…r Cumming in his report. He submitted that permission should be given to adduce that new evidence relying on the observations of Laws LJ in Terluk v Berezovsky [2011] EWCA Civ 1534 especially at paragraph 32. He submitted that the test for granting permission for a second appeal in CPR 52.7 was satisfied. He submitted that permission to a…”
- Cited — Anan Kasei Co Limited & Anor v Neo Chemicals & Oxides (Europe) Limited & Ors 2023-01-17
“… place the court in a straightjacket, but they remain central to the exercise of the court’s discretion conferred by CPR rule 52.11(4): see Terluk v Berezovsky [2011] EWCA Civ 1534 at [32] (Laws LJ).…”
- Considered — Paola Dore & Anor v EasyJet Airline Company Ltd 2022-11-23
“…do nevertheless remain relevant not as rules but as matters which must necessarily be considered in the exercise of the court’s discretion (Terluk v Berezovsky [2011] EWCA Civ 1534 (paragraphs 31-33)).…”
- Cited — MR (Pakistan) & Anor v Secretary of State for Justice & Orse 2021-04-14
“…There was no dispute before us that, in accordance with the well-established “Ladd v Marshall principles” (as glossed in Terluk v Berezovsky [2011] EWCA Civ 1534), further evidence should only be admitted for the purpose of an appeal (a) if it could not have been obtained with reasonable diligence for use at the trial; …”
- Cited — Depp II v News Group Newspapers Ltd & Anor 2021-03-25
“…There was no dispute before us that, in accordance with the well-established “Ladd v Marshall principles” (as glossed in Terluk v Berezovsky [2011] EWCA Civ 1534), further evidence should only be admitted for the purpose of an appeal (a) if it could not have been obtained with reasonable diligence for use at the trial; …”
- Cited — Gray v Global Energy Horizons Corporation 2020-12-09
“…eria are no longer primary rules, they “effectively occupy the whole field of relevant considerations to which the court must have regard” (Terluk v Berezovsky [2011] EWCA Civ 1534 at [32]).…”
- Cited — Bridges, R (On the Application Of) v South Wales Police 2020-08-11
“…1(2). It is well-established that the discretion is to be exercised having regard to the criteria in Ladd v Marshall [1954] 1 WLR 1489: see Terluk v Berezovsky [2011] EWCA Civ 1534, at [31]-[32] (Laws LJ).…”
- Cited — Price & Ors v Flitcraft Ltd & Ors 2020-07-09
“…result of the case (though it need not be decisive); and (3) the evidence is apparently credible though it need not be incontrovertible. In Terluk v Berezovsky [2011] EWCA Civ 1534 Laws LJ (with whom Morritt Ch and Rafferty J agreed) summarised the approach in this way at [32]:…”
- Cited — British Telecommunications Plc v BT Pension Scheme Trustees Ltd & Anor 2018-12-04
“…are no longer the primary rules constitutive of the Court’s power, but nevertheless, are highly relevant to the exercise of the discretion: Terluk v Berezovsky [2011] EWCA Civ 1534. In this case: the statement could not have been obtained at the time of the hearing because it post-dates it; it seems to me that the statement would have an …”
- Cited — Stocker v Stocker 2018-02-12
“… in favour of defendants. This submission is founded on an observation made by my Lord, Sir John Laws (Lord Justice Laws as he then was) in Terluk v Berezovsky [2011] EWCA Civ. 1534.…”