A ship had on board some oil of the shipowners and it was mixed with oil, the property of the receivers, and transported to India. The mixture could not be separated for practical purposes and the question was how much of the oil were the receivers entitled.
Held: The court discussed the modern meaning of the rule of evidence known in Latin as ‘omnia praesumuntur contra spoliatorem’ (everything is presumed against a destroyer (of evidence)): ‘If the wrongdoer prevents the innocent party proving how much of his property has been taken, then the wrongdoer is liable to the greatest extent possible in the circumstances.’
Staughton J said: ‘The analogy with Armory v Delamirie . . is striking. If the wrongdoer prevents the innocent party proving how much of his property has been taken, then the wrongdoer is liable to the greatest extent that is possible in the circumstances.’
Staughton J
[1988] QB 345, [1987] 3 All ER 893
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – Lupton v White 19-Dec-1808
Whatever alteration of form any property may undergo, the true owner is entitled to seize it in its new shape if he can prove the identity of the original material. . .
Cited by:
Cited – Malhotra v Dhawan CA 26-Feb-1997
There had been litigation as to the payment due on fees earned during the partnership. One party had destroyed the evidence which would have settled many issues. The court discussed the principle that it should presume all against a destroyer of . .
These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 12 July 2021; Ref: scu.193788
