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 evidence, and dismissed the appeal. The case was one for an account, and therefore a payment in was not appropriate, and the court was correct to allow for the Calderbank letter. The judge, in view of his findings was free to make the order for payment of indemnity costs.
‘First if it is found that the destruction of the evidence was carried out deliberately so as to hinder the proof of the plaintiffs claim then such finding will obviously reflect on the credibility of the destroyer. In such circumstances it would enable the court to disregard the evidence of the destroyer in the application of the presumption. That is not this case.
Second, if the court has difficulty in deciding which party’s evidence to accept then it would be legitimate to resolve that doubt by the application of the presumption. But, thirdly, if the judge forms a clear view, having borne in mind all the difficulties which may arise from the unavailability of material documents, as to which side is telling the truth I do not accept that the application of the presumption can require the judge to accept evidence he does not believe or to reject evidence he finds to be truthful.’
Judges:
Lord Justice Saville Lord Justice Morritt Sir Patrick Russell
Citations:
[1997] EWCA Civ 1096, [1997] 8 Med LR 319
Links:
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – Armory v Delamirie KBD 1722
A jeweller to whom a chimney sweep had taken a jewel he had found, took the jewel out of the socket and refused to return it. The chimney sweep sued him in trover. On the measure of damages, the court ruled ‘unless the defendant did produce the . .
Cited – Gray v Haig and Son 1855
Gray was the agent for Haig and Son, selling whisky on commission. On the termination of the agency a dispute arose as to the amount of the commission due and an account was ordered. Gray had destroyed his books, which were essential to the taking . .
Cited – Indian Oil Corporation v Greenstone Shipping SA 1988
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 . .
Cited – Bartlett v Barclays Bank Trust Co Ltd (Nos 1 and 2) ChD 1980
A claim was made against a trustee for compensation for losses incurred during the administration of the trust.
Held: For a court to order an account by a trustee on the basis of wilful default, and make the defendant liable not only for . .
Cited – Willis v Redbridge Health Authority CA 22-Dec-1995
An unsuccessful Defendant cannot be ordered to pay costs on an indemnity basis to a legally aided Plaintiff, even if it might otherwise be justified. The normal basis is for standard costs. . .
Cited – Nichols v Evens 1883
. .
Cited by:
Cited – IS Innovative Software Ltd v Howes CA 19-Feb-2004
It was alleged that the defendant had backdated contracts of employment to a time when he had been employed by the claimant, and had induced staff to leave. The company appealed dismissal of its claim.
Held: The advantage of the court . .
Cited – Zabihi v Janzemini and Others CA 30-Jul-2009
The claimant said that he had left valuable jewelry with the defendant for sale. The defendant said at first they had been stolen, but then returned jewelry which the claimant denied was what had been left. The defendant appealed a finding that he . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Evidence, Company, Costs
Updated: 05 November 2022; Ref: scu.141492
