BAILII is celebrating 24 years of free online access to the law! Would you consider making a contribution?
No donation is too small. If every visitor before 31 December gives just £5, it will have a significant impact on BAILII's ability to continue providing free access to the law.
Thank you very much for your support!
[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback] | ||
United Kingdom Employment Appeal Tribunal |
||
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> United Kingdom Employment Appeal Tribunal >> Soteriou v. Ultrachem Ltd & Ors [2002] UKEAT 250_01_2105 (21 May 2002) URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKEAT/2002/250_01_2105.html Cite as: [2002] UKEAT 250_1_2105, [2002] UKEAT 250_01_2105 |
[New search] [Printable RTF version] [Help]
At the Tribunal | |
Before
HIS HONOUR JUDGE PETER CLARK
MR D A C LAMBERT
MR R N STRAKER
APPELLANT | |
2) SOLVO LTD 3) ULTRACOLOUR LTD |
RESPONDENT |
Transcript of Proceedings
INTERLOCUTORY JUDGMENT
Revised
For the Appellant | MR SOTERIOU (the Appellant in Person) |
For the Respondents | MISS EADY (of Counsel) Messrs Lawrence Graham Solicitors 190 The Strand London WC2R 1JN |
JUDGE PETER CLARK:
"To justify the reception of fresh evidence for a new trial, three conditions must be fulfilled. First it must be shown that the evidence could not have been obtained with reasonable diligence for use at the trial, secondly the evidence must be such that if given, it would probably have an important influence on the result of the case. That need not be decisive. Thirdly, the evidence must be such that is presumably to be believed, or in other words it must be apparently credible, though it need not be incontrovertible."
That test was adopted in this jurisdiction by Mr Justice Popplewell, then President, in Wileman v. Minilec Engineering Ltd (1988) ICR 318.