Subject: Re: Subject: CA-2025-002562 – Core Bundle Filed & Request for Assistance (Disabled Litigant in Person)
From: Alki David <[email-masked]>
To: Civil Appeals - CMSB <[email-masked]>, "to: dismissal.list.manager" <[email-masked]>, Boniswa Dzere <[email-masked]>, Jenique Joseph <[email-masked]>, "Morgan, June Judge Cotter" <[email-masked]>, "Earley, Phil" <[email-masked]>, James Bohm <[email-masked]>, Ceci Preciado <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 15 Feb 2026 00:56:54 +0000

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL (CIVIL DIVISION)
Appeal No: CA-2025-002562

BETWEEN:

ALKIVIADES DAVID
Appellant (In Person – Disabled Litigant)

and

MAHIM KHAN
Respondent

  _____

APPLICATION FOR PERMISSION TO RELY ON LIMITED FRESH EVIDENCE

(Dated: 15 February 2026)

  _____

1. Purpose of this Application

1.1 The Appellant respectfully seeks permission to rely upon limited documentary material not formally incorporated into the lower court bundle but disclosed during proceedings.

1.2 This application is made strictly pursuant to the principles in Ladd v Marshall [1954] 1 WLR 1489.

1.3 The material relied upon consists of:

*       (a) Extracts of disclosed text message communications referencing the Respondent (“MK”), and

*       (b) The filed Appellant’s Opening Brief in related California appellate proceedings (10 December 2025), submitted solely to demonstrate parallel litigation context.

  _____

2. Background

2.1 During proceedings below, approximately 400 emails and associated communications were disclosed to Howard Kennedy LLP.

2.2 A schedule of those materials was compiled by the Respondent’s solicitors.

2.3 Only limited portions of the disclosed material were uploaded into the electronic record by the lower court.

2.4 The Appellant understands that not all disclosed communications were formally exhibited in the lower court record.

  _____

3. Application of Ladd v Marshall

This application satisfies the three limbs:

(i) Could not have been obtained with reasonable diligence

The materials were disclosed but were not formally incorporated into the evidential bundle or uploaded into the court record. The Appellant, as a disabled litigant in person, relied upon the court’s indication that assistance would be provided in uploading material.

(ii) Would probably have an important influence on the result

The limited extracts sought to be relied upon directly relate to credibility and procedural posture issues raised in the Grounds of Appeal, including:

*       The Respondent’s knowledge and engagement;

*       Context relevant to forum considerations and parallel proceedings.

They are capable of influencing the Court’s assessment of procedural fairness and litigation posture.

(iii) Apparently credible

The materials consist of authentic communications disclosed during proceedings and identifiable from the Respondent’s own disclosure schedule.

  _____

4. Scope and Limitation

4.1 The Appellant does not seek to expand the appeal or introduce new causes of action.

4.2 The Appellant seeks permission to rely only upon specific identified extracts, not the entirety of the disclosed archive.

4.3 The California appellate filing is relied upon solely for the limited purpose of demonstrating parallel proceedings relevant to comity and fragmentation analysis.

  _____

5. Disability Context

5.1 The Appellant suffers from traumatic brain injury and is a disabled litigant in person.

5.2 The Appellant respectfully requests reasonable procedural consideration in relation to record completeness.

  _____

6. Relief Sought

The Appellant respectfully seeks:

(a) Permission to rely upon limited identified extracts of disclosed text communications;
(b) Permission to rely upon the filed California appellate brief solely for contextual purposes;
(c) Such further directions as the Court considers appropriate.

  _____

Statement of Truth

I believe that the facts stated in this application are true.

Dated: 15 February 2026

/s/ ALKIVIADES DAVID
Alkiviades David
Appellant in Person