References: [1964] 1 WLR 451
Coram: Ungoed-Thomas J
Ratio: Husband and wife, having made mutual wills each leaving their estate to the other, had been found dead in their home from coal gas poisoning. The court asked what was required to displace the presumption that the husband, the older of the two, had died first.
Held: The court described the standards of proof when serious allegations are made in civil courts: ‘It seems to me that in civil cases it is not so much that a different standard of proof is required in different circumstances varying according to the gravity of the issue, but, as Morris LJ says, the gravity of the issue becomes part of the circumstances which the court has to take into consideration in deciding whether or not the burden of proof has been discharged. The more serious the allegation the more cogent is the evidence required to overcome the unlikelihood of what is alleged and thus to prove it. This is perhaps a somewhat academic distinction and the practical result is stated by Denning LJ: ‘The more serious the allegation the higher the degree of probability that is required: but it need not, in a civil case, reach the very high standard required by the criminal law.’ In this case the issue is whether or not the wife feloniously killed the husband. There can hardly be a graver issue than that, and its gravity weighs very heavily against establishing that such a killing took place, even for the purpose of deciding a civil issue.’ (Ungoed-Thomas J)
Jurisdiction: England and Wales
This case is cited by:
- Cited – In re H and R (Minors) (Child Sexual Abuse: Standard of Proof) HL (Independent 17-Jan-96, [1996] AC 563, [1996] 1 FLR 80, Bailii, [1995] UKHL 16, [1996] Fam Law 74, [1996] 1 FCR 509, [1996] 2 WLR 8, [1996] 1 All ER 1)
Children had made allegations of serious sexual abuse against their step-father. He was acquitted at trial, but the local authority went ahead with care proceedings. The parents appealed against a finding that a likely risk to the children had still . . - Cited – AN, Regina (on the Application of) v Mental Health Review Tribunal (Northern Region) and others CA (Bailii, [2005] EWCA Civ 1605, Times 12-Jan-06, [2006] 4 All ER 194, [2006] 2 WLR 850, [2006] QB 468, [2006] MHLR 59, (2006) 88 BMLR 59)
The appellant was detained under section 37 of the 1983 Act as a mental patient with a restriction under section 41. He sought his release.
Held: The standard of proof in such applications remained the balance of probabilities, but that . . - Cited – Khera v Secretary of State for The Home Department; Khawaja v Secretary of State for The Home Department HL (lip, [1983] 2 WLR 321, [1984] 1 AC 74, Bailii, [1982] UKHL 5, Bailii, [1983] UKHL 8, [1983] 1 All ER 765, [1982] Imm AR 139)
The appellant Khera’s father had obtained leave to settle in the UK. The appellant obtained leave to join him, but did not disclose that he had married. After his entry his wife in turn sought to join him. The appellant was detained as an illegal . . - Cited – In re D; Doherty, Re (Northern Ireland); Life Sentence Review Commissioners v D HL (Bailii, [2008] UKHL 33, Times 24-Jun-08, HL, [2008] NI 292, [2009] Fam Law 192, [2008] 4 All ER 992, [2008] 1 WLR 1499)
The Sentence Review Commissioners had decided not to order the release of the prisoner, who was serving a life sentence. He had been released on licence from a life sentence and then committed further serious sexual offences against under-age girls . . - Cited – re G (A Child) CA (Bailii, [2014] EWCA Civ 432)
McFarlane LJ said: ‘In most child care cases a choice will fall to be made between two or more options. The judicial exercise should not be a linear process whereby each option, other than the most draconian, is looked at in isolation and then . .
(This list may be incomplete)
Leading Case
Last Update: 02 January 2018
Ref: 196915
The post In re Dellow’s Will Trusts; Lloyd’s Bank v Institute of Cancer Research: ChD 1964 appeared first on swarb.co.uk.