Auld LJ commented on the analysis in Stephens of the need for a judge to decide the evidence before him: ‘Perhaps I can, without damage to that analysis, summarise it by reducing it to two main propositions. First, a judge should only resort to the burden of proof where he is unable to resolve an issue of fact or facts after he has unsuccessfully attempted to do so by examination and evaluation of the evidence. Secondly, the Court of Appeal should only intervene where the nature of the case and/or the judge’s reasoning are such that he could reasonably have been able to make a finding one way or the other on the evidence without such resort.
. . When this court in Stephens v Cannon used the word ‘exceptional’ as a seeming qualification for resort by a tribunal to the burden of proof, it meant no more than that such resort is only necessary where on the available evidence, conflicting and/or uncertain and/or falling short of proof, there is nothing left but to conclude that the claimant has not proved his case. The burden of proof remains part of our law and practice — and a respectable and useful part at that — where a tribunal cannot on the state of the evidence before it rationally decide one way or the other.5 In this case the Recorder has shown, in my view, in his general observations on the unsatisfactory nature of the important parts of the evidence on each side going to the central issue, particularly that of Mr Verlander, that he had considered carefully whether there was evidence on which he could rationally decide one way or the other. It is more than plain from what he has said and why, that he concluded he could not. Further, more detailed analysis by him of the evidence and rehearsal of his views on it would, in my view, have been otiose.’
Auld, Rix and Moses LJJ
[2007] EWCA Civ 835, [2021] 4 WLR 89
Bailii
England and Wales
Citing:
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 . .
Cited by:
Cited – ETI Euro Telecom International Nv v Republic of Bolivia and Another CA 28-Jul-2008
The parties were involved in an international investment dispute arbitration. An injunction had been sought to prevent repatriation of assets to Bolivia.
Held: The international system of arbitration was not subject to any national law and did . .
These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 01 July 2021; Ref: scu.259138
