Taking Care Of The (Fresh) Evidence

The case of Clear Call Limited – v – Central London Investments Limited [2016] EWCA Civ 1231 [2017] provides further guidance of the application of the Ladd – v – Marshall ([1954] EWCA Civ 1) test for the submission of new evidence in a case where judgment has already been delivered. The case concerned the new rent on an unopposed business lease renewal pursuant to the Landlord and Tenant Act 1954 in which the tenant had been refused permission to adduce fresh evidence seeking to establish that one of the comparable transactions relied on by the landlord and accepted by the judge at first instance was a sham.

The facts of the case are that the tenant Clear Call had applied for a new tenancy. The landlord Central London Investments disagreed as to the terms, in particular the rent. Both parties called experts to give rental valuation evidence. Clear Call argued that one of the landlord's comparables was "suspicious" with an artificially inflated rent designed to push