Milton Keynes Borough Council v Nulty, decd and others – WLR Daily

Posted January 28th, 2013 in appeals, burden of proof, causation, fire, insurance, law reports, negligence by sally

Milton Keynes Borough Council v Nulty, decd and others [2013] EWCA Civ 15; [2013] WLR (D) 25

“There was no rule of law that if the only other possible causes of an event were very much less likely than one suggested means of causation, that became the probable cause; the court had to be satisfied on rational and objective grounds that the case for believing that the suggested means of causation occurred was stronger than the case for not so believing.”

WLR Daily, 24th January 2013

Source: www.iclr.co.uk

How UK libel laws undermined Sunday Times in Lance Armstrong case – The Guardian

Posted January 22nd, 2013 in burden of proof, defamation, drug abuse, media, news, sport by sally

“The legal battle with disgraced cyclist Lance Armstrong which cost the Sunday Times almost £1m after it suggested he took banned substances shows how difficult it is to pursue investigations under British libel laws, with the burden of proof heavily stacked against publishers, according to those who worked on the original stories.”

Full story

The Guardian, 22nd January 2013

Source: www.guardian.co.uk

Regina v Sadighpour – WLR Daily

Posted January 8th, 2013 in appeals, burden of proof, crime, defences, immigration, law reports by sally

Regina v Sadighpour [2012] EWCA Crim 2669; [2013] WLR (D) 4

“Section 31(7) of the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999 did not reiterate a requirement to satisfy an evidential burden, initially imposed by section 31(1) on a defendant in relation to refugee status, even when the Secretary of State had refused an asylum claim, and was apt to cover a situation where there had already been due consideration of the defendant’s claim to refugee status on the merits.”

WLR Daily, 11th December 2012

Source: www.iclr.co.uk

Tying ourselves into (Gordian) knots? – Thirty Nine Essex Street

“This paper seeks to take a step back from the intricacies of the DOLS regime that we have learned to know and, at best (I sense) tolerate since it was introduced in April 2009. Rather, it seeks to re examine the fundamental question of what constitutes a deprivation of liberty for purposes of Article 5(1) ECHR in the context of those without capacity to determine their own residence and care/treatment arrangements.”

Full story (PDF)

Thirty Nine Essex Street, November 2012

Source: www.39essex.com

Ben Butler’s case reminds us the justice system is not infallible – The Guardian

“Ben Butler, found to have shaken his seven week old baby in both care proceedings and criminal proceedings in 2008, has finally been declared an innocent man. Ben had taken his daughter Ellie to hospital after she had collapsed with breathing problems, but suspicion quickly fell on him when doctors believed the symptoms she displayed were conclusive evidence of shaking. Five years on, and the discovery of medical evidence that no one had previously seen, a high court judge has exonerated Ben of any wrongdoing.”

Full story

The Guardian, 18th October 2012

Source: www.guardian.co.uk

Hewage v Grampian Health Board – WLR Daily

Hewage v Grampian Health Board [2012] UKSC 37; [2012] WLR (D) 235

“In considering a claim for discrimination in the employment tribunal, the statutory burden of proof provisions only required careful attention where there was room for doubt as to the facts necessary to establish discrimination.”

WLR Daily, 25th July 2012

Source: www.iclr.co.uk

Fecitt and others v NHS Manchester (Public Concern at Work intervening) – WLR Daily

Posted November 3rd, 2011 in appeals, burden of proof, employment, law reports, vicarious liability by sally

Fecitt and others v NHS Manchester (Public Concern at Work intervening) [2011] EWCA Civ 1190; [2011] WLR (D) 308

“A worker had been subjected to a detriment “on the ground that” he had made a protected disclosure, for the purposes of section 47B of the Employment Rights Act 1996, if the protected disclosure was a material factor in the employer’s decision to subject the employee to a detrimental act.”

WLR Daily, 25th October 2011

Source: www.iclr.co.uk

Ineos Healthcare Ltd v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) (Teva Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd, other party) – WLR Daily

Posted February 24th, 2011 in burden of proof, EC law, law reports, trade marks by sally

Ineos Healthcare Ltd v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) (Teva Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd, other party) (Case T-222/09); [2011] WLR (D) 53

“In opposition proceedings against registration of a trade mark pursuant to article 42 of Council Regulation (EC) No 40/94, the opposing party was not obliged to adduce evidence in support of the opposition. Whilst in relation to proceedings relating to relative grounds for refusal the Board of Appeal of the Office of Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) could take into account facts which were likely to be known by anyone or which might be learned from generally accessible sources, it was not, however, entitled to exceed the conditions governing examination set out in article 74 of Regulation 40/94.”

WLR Daily, 23rd February 2011

Source: www.lawreports.co.uk

Please note that once a case has been fully reported in one of the ICLR series the corresponding WLR Daily summary is removed.

Paponette and others v Attorney General of Trinidad and Tobago – WLR Daily

Posted December 14th, 2010 in burden of proof, law reports, public interest, Trinidad & Tobago by sally

Paponette and others v Attorney General of Trinidad and Tobago [2010] UKPC 32; [2010] WLR (D) 323

“A court could not infer from the bare fact that a public body had acted in breach of a legitimate expectation that it must have done so to further some overriding public interest.”

WLR Daily, 13th December 2010

Source: www.lawreports.co.uk

Please note once a case has been fully reported in one of the ICLR series the corresponding WLR Daily summary is removed.

Regina v Webster – WLR Daily

Posted December 7th, 2010 in burden of proof, corruption, human rights, law reports by sally

Regina v Webster [2010] EWCA Crim 2819; [2010] WLR (D) 216

“The reverse onus of proof which s 2 of the Prevention of Corruption Act 1916 effected on a prosecution for an offence contrary to s 1(2) of the Public Bodies Corrupt Practices Act 1889, placing on the defendant the legal burden of disproving guilt was no longer necessary and the means of imposition were unreasonable and disproportionate, and so it unjustifiably interfered with the presumption of innocence provided by art 6(2) of he Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms. It should therefore be read down pursuant to s 3 of the Human Rights Act 1998 so as to impose a merely evidential burden on the defendant.”

WLR Daily, 6th December 2010

Source: www.lawreports.co.uk

Please note once a case has been fully reported in one of the ICLR series the corresponding WLR Daily summary is removed.

EAT upholds victimisation claim – Law Society’s Gazette

“A firm that ‘gratuitously’ mentioned a solicitor’s previous discrimination claim against it when providing an employment reference to another firm has lost an appeal in the Employment Appeal Tribunal.”

Full story

Law Society’s Gazette, 17th June 2010

Source: www.lawgazette.co.uk

R v Charles – WLR Daily

Posted July 31st, 2009 in appeals, ASBOs, burden of proof, law reports by sally

R v Charles [2009] EWCA Crim 1570; [2009] WLR (D) 265

“Where a person was charged with an offence under s 1(10) of the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 of doing something which he was prohibited from doing by an anti-social behaviour order without reasonable excuse, the legal burden of proving that the defendant acted without reasonable excuse lay on the prosecution.”

WLR Daily, 30th July 2009

Source: www.lawreports.co.uk

Please note once a case has been fully reported in one of the ICLR series the corresponding WLR Daily summary is removed.

Egan v Central Manchester and Manchester Children’s University Hospitals NHS Trust – Times Law Reports

Posted February 4th, 2009 in burden of proof, health & safety, law reports by sally

Egan v Central Manchester and Manchester Children’s University Hospitals NHS Trust

Court of Appeal

“Where a hospital employee was injured using a mechanical hoist to move a patient, the burden was on the employer to prove that it had taken appropriate steps to reduce any risk to the lowest reasonably practicable level.”

The Times, 3rd February 2009

Source: www.timesonline.co.uk

Please note the Times Law Reports are only available free on Times Online for 21 days from the date of publication.

Egan v Central Manchester and Manchester Children’s University Hospitals NHS Trust – WLR Daily

Posted December 19th, 2008 in burden of proof, health & safety, law reports by sally

Egan v Central Manchester and Manchester Children’s University Hospitals NHS Trust [2008] EWCA Civ 1424; [2008] WLR (D) 394

Once an employee had shown that a manual handling operation at work carried some risk of injury, for the purposes of reg 4(1)(b) of the Manual Handling Operations Regulations 1992, the burden of proof was on the employer to prove that it had taken appropriate steps to reduce the risk to the lowest level reasonably practicable, under reg 4(1)(b)(ii).”

WLR Daily, 18th December 2008

Source: www.lawreports.co.uk

Please note once a case has been fully reported in one of the ICLR series the corresponding WLR Daily summary is removed.

Regina v Chargot and Others – Times Law Reports

Posted December 16th, 2008 in burden of proof, health & safety, law reports by sally

Regina v Chargot and Others

House of Lords

“In criminal proceedings against an employer after an accident ot work, it was sufficient for the prosecution to prove merely a risk of injury arising from a state of affairs at work, without identifying and proving specific breaches of duty by the employer. Once that was done, a prima facie case of breach was established. The onus then passed to the employer to make good the defence of reasonable practicability.”

The Times, 16th December 2008

Source: www.timesonline.co.uk

Please note the Times Law Reports are only available free on Times Online for 21 days from the date of publication

R v Chargot (trading as Contract Services) and others – WLR Daily

Posted December 11th, 2008 in burden of proof, health & safety, law reports by sally

R v Chargot (trading as Contract Services) and others [2008] UKHL 73; [2008] WLR (D) 379

“When criminal proceedings were brought against an employer under ss 2 and 3 of the Health and Safety at Work etc Act 1974 it was sufficient for the prosecution to prove merely a risk of injury arising from a state of affairs at work, and it was not necessary to identify, allege and prove specific breaches of duty by the employer. Once that was done a prima facie case of breach was established. The onus then passed to the employer to make good the defence of reasonable practicability.”

WLR Daily, 10th December 2008

Source: www.lawreports.co.uk

Please note once a case has been fully reported in one of the ICLR series the corresponding WLR Daily summary is removed.

In re M (A Child) (Non-Accidental Injury: Burden of Proof) – WLR Daily

Posted November 28th, 2008 in burden of proof, child abuse, judgments, law reports, reasons by sally

In re M (A Child) (Non-Accidental Injury: Burden of Proof) [2008] EWCA Civ 1261; [2008] WLR (D) 367

After a judge had given judgment counsel had a positive duty to raise with the judge not just any alleged deficiency in the judge’s reasoning process but any genuine query or ambiguity which arose on the judgment.”

WLR Daily, 27th November 2008

Source: www.lawreports.co.uk

Please note once a case has been fully reported in one of the ICLR series the corresponding WLR Daily summary is removed.