The judge had heard the evidence from two drivers involved in a road traffic incident. He had declared that he could find no way to prefer the evidence of one over the other. Accordingly neither had proved his or her case on the balance of probabilities, and both claims were dismissed.
Held: A court might very exceptionally find itself in the position the judge said applied here, but it would be particularly rare in road traffic cases. Examining the evidence the court found for the appellant. Before resorting to the burden of proof, a court should, as in Ashraf, raise with counsel the possibility that such a course might have to be taken. The judge erred in failing to analyse the evidence and that, had he done so, he would have found that the defendants had discharged the burden of proof.
Judges:
Ward. Scott-Baker, Thomas LJJ
Citations:
Gazette 13-Nov-2003, Times 24-Oct-2003
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – Morris v London Iron and Steel Co Ltd CA 1987
In exceptional cases, a judge conscientiously seeking to decide the issues between the parties might have to conclude ‘I just do not know’. . .
Cited by:
Cited – Stephens and Another v Cannon and Another CA 14-Mar-2005
The claimants had purchased land from the defendants. The contract was conditional on a development which did not take place. The master had been presented with very different valuations of the property.
Held: The master was not entitled to . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Litigation Practice, Road Traffic
Updated: 09 May 2022; Ref: scu.187184
