The burden of proof
Series: Contract Journal ; 417(6418) 19 March 2003, 26(1) | Construction News ; (6809) 27 March 2003, 30(1)Publication details: 2003Subject(s): Online resources: Summary: Reviews recent case "BHP Billiton Petroleum Ltd v Dalmine SPA" ([2003] EWCA Civ 170; [2003] BLR 271-279(9) which highlighted the problem of determining proof in legal proceedings, where a gas pipeline had failed. It emerged that Dalmine (D) had fraudulently misrepresented the properties of certain pipes, which BHP (B) had relied on. B sued D and won, but D appealed on the grounds that the pipe may have failed anyway. D could not prove this negative hypothesis and the appeal was dismissed. View judgment at www.courtservice.gov.uk.| Item type | Current library | Call number | Copy number | Status | Barcode | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Journal article | London Journal article | ABS66690 (Browse shelf(Opens below)) | 1 | Available | 122413-1001 |
Reviews recent case "BHP Billiton Petroleum Ltd v Dalmine SPA" ([2003] EWCA Civ 170; [2003] BLR 271-279(9) which highlighted the problem of determining proof in legal proceedings, where a gas pipeline had failed. It emerged that Dalmine (D) had fraudulently misrepresented the properties of certain pipes, which BHP (B) had relied on. B sued D and won, but D appealed on the grounds that the pipe may have failed anyway. D could not prove this negative hypothesis and the appeal was dismissed. View judgment at www.courtservice.gov.uk.