Marano v Marano

The application advanced by Mr Mostyn QC is for the admission of fresh evidence in the form of a letter from a Californian lawyer and a report from a London commercial property expert. These documents are late arising, long after the grant of permission to appeal in this case, and they are persuasively challenged by Mr Marks QC on the ground that the point as to Californian law is of doubtful value, was not run in the court below, and is in any event of no direct application here given that his client is not fundamentally Californian. We accept those submissions.

In relation to Mr Wolfenden’s report, it is vulnerable to all the argument addressed by Mr Marks, namely that it has not been tested and it would accordingly be dangerous for this appellate court to found itself in any way on such evidence, particularly given the fact that it has come at such a late stage in the development of the appeal. At best, it would do no more than establish a snap shot valuation at January 2010 for that which was before the judge in March last. It does not seem to me that it is a necessary foundation for any of Mr Mostyn’s arguments, nor does it seem to me that to have refused the application or to remit it would impact in any way on the case that he intends to advance.

So as a matter of principle, I conclude that we should refuse the application.

I agree.

I agree also.