LEGAL PRINCIPLE: CIVIL PROCEDURE – Action to Set Aside Judgment – Requirements for Adducing Fresh Evidence
PRINCIPLE STATEMENT
To justify reception of fresh evidence or a new trial, three conditions must be fulfilled: the evidence could not have been obtained with reasonable diligence for use at trial; it would probably have important influence on the result though need not be decisive; and it must be apparently credible though need not be incontrovertible.
RATIO DECIDENDI (SOURCE)
"The principles to be applied are the same as those always applied when fresh evidence is sought to be introduced. In order to justify the reception of fresh evidence or 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: second, the evidence must be such that, if given; it would probably have an important influence on the result of the case, although it need not be decisive: third, the evidence must be such as is presumably to be believed, or in other words, it must be apparently credible, although it need not be incontrovertible."
EXPLANATION / SCOPE
The three-fold test from Ladd v. Marshall governs fresh evidence applications. First, unavailability despite diligence prevents parties from withholding evidence for second chances. “Reasonable diligence” is assessed objectively. Second, “important influence” sets threshold below “decisive” but above merely cumulative—evidence must be material and capable of affecting outcome. Third, “apparently credible” requires prima facie believability without requiring conclusive proof. All three conditions must be satisfied cumulatively; failure on any ground defeats the application. This strict test balances finality against justice, preventing routine fresh evidence applications while allowing genuine cases where new material evidence emerges that could not reasonably have been discovered earlier.