References: [1893] AC 207
Coram: Lord Herschell
Ratio: There were concurrent findings on the question whether a vessel was showing a red light when it came into collision with another vessel. The House was asked to disturb the findings of fact.
Held: A mere finding of fact in which both the courts below had concurred ought not to be disturbed unless it could be clearly demonstrated that the finding was erroneous. Lord Herschell said: ‘In the present case, although I might probably myself have come to a different conclusion, I cannot say that any cardinal fact was disregarded or unduly estimated by the courts below. I can lay hold of nothing as turning the balance decisively the one way rather than the other. I think the decision of the question of fact at issue depends upon which way the balance of probability inclines, and I am not prepared to advise your Lordships that it so unequivocally inclines in the opposite direction to that indicated in the judgments of the courts below, that this House would be justified in reversing the judgment appealed from.’ and
‘Now I quite agree with what has been said in this House in previous cases as to the importance of not disturbing a mere finding of fact in which both the Courts below have concurred. I think such a step ought only to be taken when it can be clearly demonstrated that the finding is erroneous. .’
This case is cited by:
- Cited – Hicks v Chief Constable of the South Yorkshire Police HL (Bailii, [1991] UKHL 9, [1992] 2 All ER 65, [1992] PIQR P433)
The plaintiffs sought damages after watching television scenes of the football match at Hillsborough at which their two daughters died after disorder.
Held: Neither the risk of future injury nor anxiety at the prospect of future injury is . .
(This list may be incomplete)
Last Update: 07-Aug-16
Ref: 272833