header-logo header-logo

Damages

19 March 2010
Issue: 7409 / Categories: Case law , Law digest
printer mail-detail

Noble v Owens [2010] EWCA Civ 224, [2010] All ER (D) 87 (Mar)

Where fresh evidence was adduced in the Court of Appeal tending to show that the judge at first instance had been deliberately misled, that court would only allow the appeal and order a re-trial where the fraud was either admitted or the evidence was incontrovertible. In any other case the issue of fraud had to be determined before a judgment of a court of first instance could be set aside.

The normal rule in accident cases was that the sum of damages fell to be assessed once and for all at the time of the hearing, if further evidence as to new events was too easily admitted there would be no finality in litigation. The need for finality was a well established principle in English law, however exceptions arose where justice conflicted with that principle. The first exception was the power of the court to review fresh evidence if certain conditions were fulfilled.

The second exception arose in the context of a challenge to an

If you are not a subscriber, subscribe now to read this content
If you are already a subscriber sign in
...or Register for two weeks' free access to subscriber content

MOVERS & SHAKERS

FOIL—Bridget Tatham

FOIL—Bridget Tatham

Forum of Insurance Lawyers elects president for 2026

Gibson Dunn—Robbie Sinclair

Gibson Dunn—Robbie Sinclair

Partner joinslabour and employment practice in London

Muckle LLP—Ella Johnson

Muckle LLP—Ella Johnson

Real estate dispute resolution team welcomes newly qualified solicitor

NEWS
Cryptocurrency is reshaping financial remedy cases, warns Robert Webster of Maguire Family Law in NLJ this week. Digital assets—concealable, volatile and hard to trace—are fuelling suspicions of hidden wealth, yet Form E still lacks a section for crypto-disclosure
NLJ columnist Stephen Gold surveys a flurry of procedural reforms in his latest 'Civil way' column
Paper cyber-incident plans are useless once ransomware strikes, argues Jack Morris of Epiq in NLJ this week
In this week's NLJ, Robert Hargreaves and Lily Johnston of York St John University examine the Employment Rights Bill 2024–25, which abolishes the two-year qualifying period for unfair-dismissal claims
Writing in NLJ this week, Manvir Kaur Grewal of Corker Binning analyses the collapse of R v Óg Ó hAnnaidh, where a terrorism charge failed because prosecutors lacked statutory consent. The case, she argues, highlights how procedural safeguards—time limits, consent requirements and institutional checks—define lawful state power
back-to-top-scroll