Where a new trial is sought on the basis of a witness's recantation, the applicant faces significant hurdles regardless of whether the ordinary fresh evidence test or the stricter fraud/perjury test applies. Under the fresh evidence test, it must be 'reasonably clear' that a different result would have ensued. Where the trial judge formed an adverse view of the plaintiff's credibility independently of the impugned evidence, recantation by one witness is unlikely to satisfy this test. There is a difference of judicial opinion on whether recantation cases are governed by the ordinary fresh evidence principles or require proof of fraud/perjury to the satisfaction of the appellate court.
The full text is available to signed-in members, including the 3 later cases that cite this judgment.
1 of the 3 citing cases carry a classified treatment. How each court treated it is available to signed-in members.