Datec Electronic Holdings Ltd and Another v United Parcels Service Ltd and Another: ComC 22 Feb 2005

The claimant sought damages for the loss of goods in transit under the care of the defendant. Andrew Smith J held as regards the burden of proof in an allegation of wilful misconduct: ‘I should add that I was properly reminded by counsel that the principle set out in such cases and as in Re H and others (Minors) Sexual Abuse: Standard of Proof [1996] AC 563 where Lord Nichols observed that ‘built into the preponderance of probability standard is a generous degree of flexibility in respect of the seriousness of the allegation’ (at p 596f), however Lord Nichols explained that this simply means that the inherent probability or improbability is itself to be taken into account when weighing the probabilities in deciding whether, on balance, the event occurred. Although in this case the allegation is one of theft from an employer I do not regard this possibility as so improbable that there is a particularly heavy burden upon the claimants to prove their case. I have simply concluded that there is not proper evidence to support the claimants’ allegation.’
Andrew Smith J
[2005] 1 LR 470, [2005] EWHC 221 (Comm)
England and Wales
Cited by:
CitedTNT Global Spa and Another v Denfleet International Ltd and Another CA 2-May-2007
The driver of a lorry carrying the claimant’s goods was said to have fallen asleep at the wheel, and the cargo damaged in the accident. The carrier appealed a finding of liability for wilful misconduct.
Held: ‘I am unable to accept that mere . .
Appeal fromDatec Electronic Holdings Ltd and Another v United Parcels Service Ltd CA 29-Nov-2005
The parties put forward alternative explanations for the loss of a mail packet. Richards LJ said: ‘Nor do I see any inconsistency between my approach and the observations of Lord Brandon in The Popi M. The conclusion that employee theft was the . .
At First InstanceDatec Electronics Holdings Ltd and others v United Parcels Services Ltd HL 16-May-2007
The defendants had taken on the delivery of a quantity of the claimant’s computers. The equipment reached one depot, but then was lost or stolen. The parties disputed whether the Convention rules applied. UPS said that the claimant had agreed that . .
CitedIde v ATB Sales Ltd and Another CA 28-Apr-2008
Each appellant challenged how the judge had decided between alternative proofs of causation of the respective loss. In Ide, the claimant asserted a fault in a cycle handlebar, and in Lexus, the claimant asserted that it caught fire whilst . .

These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 25 March 2021; Ref: scu.223339