A litigant cannot establish 'special grounds' for receiving further evidence on appeal under s 75A(8) by showing that their solicitor failed to act on instructions to obtain the evidence; the solicitor's failure is attributed to the client. In family provision claims, the 'totality of the relationship' requirement can be satisfied by a broad-brush assessment where the relationship is unremarkable, and a ground of appeal that the judge failed to give 'proper weight' to a relevant factor can succeed only if the outcome is unreasonable or plainly unjust. An applicant's drug use or financial improvidence is not irrelevant to the jurisdictional question under the Family Provision Act, but its relevance depends on the specific consequences demonstrated on the evidence.
The full text is available to signed-in members, including the 97 later cases that cite this judgment.
18 of the 97 citing cases carry a classified treatment. How each court treated it is available to signed-in members.