[2025] UKUT 151 (LC)

It is an important principle of litigation that a party generally gets just one shot at producing the evidence needed to prove his or her case. It is not usually permissible to adduce fresh evidence in an appeal, because it is not fair to allow a claimant or applicant to mount repeated attacks; it is their responsibility to set out their case at first instance so that the defendant or respondent knows the case they have to answer. Once a decision has been made on that case and that evidence the applicant will not be allowed try again by producing more evidence. An exception can be made where the evidence could not with reasonable diligence have been produced at first instance, it is credible, and it would have had an important influence on the outcome (Ladd v Marshall [1954] 1 WLR 1489).

Those three requirements are cumulative. Evidence that is credible, and might well have changed the outcome, will not be allowed where with reasonable diligence it could have been produced at first instance.

The present appeal was brought with conditional permission; the appeal would proceed only if the applicant succeeded in his application for permission to adduce fresh evidence. As will be seen, the conditions set out in Ladd v Marshall were not all met, the evidence could not be admitted, and the appeal fails.

The appeal is brought by Mr Szymczak, as a former tenant of 55 Roedale Road, Brighton, against the refusal of the First-tier Tribunal (“the FTT”) to make a rent repayment order against his landlord, Nafeesa Begum Limited. Neither party has been legally represented; Mr Szymczak presented his own case, and the landlord was represented by one of its directors, Mrs Farah Entwhistle.