Facts known to an applicant at the time of the original order but subsequently forgotten do not constitute 'facts discovered after an order is made' within the meaning of r 668(1)(b) of the UCPR. An applicant under r 668(1)(b) must satisfy the same standard of proof as applies to fresh evidence on appeal, namely that the newly discovered facts would have entitled the applicant to a different order. The reasoning process of a court in reaching its decision cannot be characterised as a 'fact' for the purpose of r 668(1).
The full text is available to signed-in members.