Some of the content presented on our website has been generated with the assistance of Artificial Intelligence (AI). We ensure that all AI-generated content meets our high standards for accuracy and relevance.
Witnesses are a key component in most cases and may often be the determining factor of a case’s outcome. The Court tend to rely on a witnesses evidence unless the opposing party is able to persuade a Judge that the witness is not reliable or lacks credibility. It is, however, difficult to challenge a witness’s credibility without evidence, but what happens when later events or fresh information becomes available to assist. Will a Court allow the case to be reconsidered? This was the case in Dale v Banga and others.
Dale v Banga and others (2021) EWCA Civ 240
This case was brought before the Court to determine how a Deceased’s estate was to be distributed as his last known Will, dated 2013, was only signed by one witness. This Will was in favour of the Defendant, Mr Banga, but was held to be invalid due to lack of correct execution. The Deceased’s previous Will was therefore to be considered.
The previous Will, made in 2012, left the majority of the Deceased’s estate to the applicant, Mrs Dale. A letter of revocation dated 2013 was, however, submitted which revoked the 2012 Will. The attesting witnesses to that letter were Mr Banga and Mr Arif, a business associate of Mr Banga. This letter was declared valid and since no other previous Will was to apply, the Deceased was deemed to have died intestate.
A number of years later, the Applicant sought permission to appeal on the basis new evidence came to light which challenged the credibility of both Mr Banga and Mr Arif and further, challenged the validity of the letter of revocation. This new evidence was that Mr Arif had been convicted of fraudulent trading and money laundering alongside Mr Banga’s son. Mr Banga had also been involved and was accused of attempting to pervert the course of justice through falsifying a number of documents.
Counsel, on behalf of the Applicant, submitted that this new evidence if available during the original trial would have altered the Court’s approach on the letter of revocation as it clearly shows the Defendant witnesses to be dishonest and further, it would not be beyond them to have forged the letter of revocation. This was supported by the fact that the witnesses, Mr Arif and Mr Banga, were jointly involved in the criminal investigations.
The Court held that this new evidence did not meet the threshold in order to be successful in allowing an appeal. This is on the basis the evidence did not relate to the facts of the case in hand and the criminal events took place after the letter of revocation was made. This new evidence alone only challenged the credibility of the witnesses, which was considered during the original trial, and was not enough to show the letter was forged.
The Court further commented that indirect evidence of a witness’s bad character will be difficult to meet the threshold in allowing a case to be reconsidered. It is therefore expected new evidence will be more readily accepted when that evidence is related to the heart of the case.
How Nelsons can help
Stuart Parris is a Trainee Solicitor at Nelsons.
If you have obtained more evidence following the decision of a case and would like advice on an appeal, please contact a member of our expert Inheritance Disputes team in Derby, Leicester or Nottingham who will be able to assist. Please call 0800 024 1976 or contact us via our online form.