header-logo header-logo

30 July 2010 / Keith Patten
Issue: 7428 / Categories: Features , Personal injury
printer mail-detail

Bearing the burden

Keith Patten applauds the judiciary’s common-sense approach to evidence in personal injury claims

It is trite law that a claimant in a personal injury claim bears the burden of proof on most important issues, including those of duty, breach, damage and causation. This burden carries with it an obligation on the part of the claimant to adduce evidence from which the court can be convinced (on a balance of probabilities, of course) that the case he is advancing has been made out. As a general proposition, therefore, if evidence is simply not available then that is likely to represent a problem for the claimant rather more than for the defendant. That basic statement of principle can, however, be subject to a more nuanced approach in some cases. What, for example, of the position where the non-availability of evidence is, of itself, a consequence of the defendant’s breach of duty. That was an issue which the Court of Appeal needed to address in Keefe v The Isle of Man Steam Packet Company Limited [2010] EWCA Civ

If you are not a subscriber, subscribe now to read this content
If you are already a subscriber sign in
...or Register for two weeks' free access to subscriber content

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Withers—Sophie Barrett-Brown

Withers—Sophie Barrett-Brown

Withers drives further growth in its UK immigration team with new partner Sophie Barrett-Brown

Venus Legal—Esther Amoako

Venus Legal—Esther Amoako

Venus Legal invests in next generation of legal talent as specialist litigation practice grows

Fisher Phillips—Catrina Smith

Fisher Phillips—Catrina Smith

Fisher Phillips continues momentum in London with arrival of Catrina Smith

NEWS
Restrictions on workplace non-disclosure agreements could make settlements slower, more complex and more expensive when reforms expected in 2027 take effect
Private prosecutors face closer scrutiny under Crown Prosecution Service guidance designed to strengthen accountability and consistency when intervention is requested
Foreign states cannot necessarily claim immunity for cyber operations launched abroad against computers in Britain, following a divided Supreme Court ruling
Defendants who make unsupported complaints about their lawyers risk losing legal aid while confiscation proceedings continue without representation
Lawyers advising Russian clients face different sanctions restrictions across the UK, EU and US, despite their shared objective of increasing pressure on Russia
back-to-top-scroll