Archive for the 'burden of proof' Category

Ineos Healthcare Ltd v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) (Teva Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd, other party) – WLR Daily

Ineos Healthcare Ltd v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) (Teva Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd, other party) (Case T-222/09); [2011] WLR (D) 53

“In opposition proceedings against registration of a trade mark pursuant to article 42 of Council Regulation (EC) No 40/94, the opposing party was not obliged to adduce evidence in support of the opposition. Whilst in relation to proceedings relating to relative grounds for refusal the Board of Appeal of the Office of Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) could take into account facts which were likely to be known by anyone or which might be learned from generally accessible sources, it was not, however, entitled to exceed the conditions governing examination set out in article 74 of Regulation 40/94.”

WLR Daily, 23rd February 2011

Source: www.lawreports.co.uk

Please note that once a case has been fully reported in one of the ICLR series the corresponding WLR Daily summary is removed.

Paponette and others v Attorney General of Trinidad and Tobago – WLR Daily

Paponette and others v Attorney General of Trinidad and Tobago [2010] UKPC 32; [2010] WLR (D) 323

“A court could not infer from the bare fact that a public body had acted in breach of a legitimate expectation that it must have done so to further some overriding public interest.”

WLR Daily, 13th December 2010

Source: www.lawreports.co.uk

Please note once a case has been fully reported in one of the ICLR series the corresponding WLR Daily summary is removed.

Regina v Webster – WLR Daily

Regina v Webster [2010] EWCA Crim 2819; [2010] WLR (D) 216

“The reverse onus of proof which s 2 of the Prevention of Corruption Act 1916 effected on a prosecution for an offence contrary to s 1(2) of the Public Bodies Corrupt Practices Act 1889, placing on the defendant the legal burden of disproving guilt was no longer necessary and the means of imposition were unreasonable and disproportionate, and so it unjustifiably interfered with the presumption of innocence provided by art 6(2) of he Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms. It should therefore be read down pursuant to s 3 of the Human Rights Act 1998 so as to impose a merely evidential burden on the defendant.”

WLR Daily, 6th December 2010

Source: www.lawreports.co.uk

Please note once a case has been fully reported in one of the ICLR series the corresponding WLR Daily summary is removed.

EAT upholds victimisation claim – Law Society’s Gazette

“A firm that ‘gratuitously’ mentioned a solicitor’s previous discrimination claim against it when providing an employment reference to another firm has lost an appeal in the Employment Appeal Tribunal.”

Full story

Law Society’s Gazette, 17th June 2010

Source: www.lawgazette.co.uk

R v Charles – WLR Daily

R v Charles [2009] EWCA Crim 1570; [2009] WLR (D) 265

“Where a person was charged with an offence under s 1(10) of the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 of doing something which he was prohibited from doing by an anti-social behaviour order without reasonable excuse, the legal burden of proving that the defendant acted without reasonable excuse lay on the prosecution.”

WLR Daily, 30th July 2009

Source: www.lawreports.co.uk

Please note once a case has been fully reported in one of the ICLR series the corresponding WLR Daily summary is removed.

Egan v Central Manchester and Manchester Children’s University Hospitals NHS Trust – Times Law Reports

Egan v Central Manchester and Manchester Children’s University Hospitals NHS Trust

Court of Appeal

“Where a hospital employee was injured using a mechanical hoist to move a patient, the burden was on the employer to prove that it had taken appropriate steps to reduce any risk to the lowest reasonably practicable level.”

The Times, 3rd February 2009

Source: www.timesonline.co.uk

Please note the Times Law Reports are only available free on Times Online for 21 days from the date of publication.

Egan v Central Manchester and Manchester Children’s University Hospitals NHS Trust – WLR Daily

Egan v Central Manchester and Manchester Children’s University Hospitals NHS Trust [2008] EWCA Civ 1424; [2008] WLR (D) 394

Once an employee had shown that a manual handling operation at work carried some risk of injury, for the purposes of reg 4(1)(b) of the Manual Handling Operations Regulations 1992, the burden of proof was on the employer to prove that it had taken appropriate steps to reduce the risk to the lowest level reasonably practicable, under reg 4(1)(b)(ii).”

WLR Daily, 18th December 2008

Source: www.lawreports.co.uk

Please note once a case has been fully reported in one of the ICLR series the corresponding WLR Daily summary is removed.


March 2017
M T W T F S S
« May    
 12345
6789101112
13141516171819
20212223242526
2728293031  

Categories