000			01425cam a2200241 4500
001			ABS66690
008			030527n2003 000 0 eng u
035			_a(Sirsi) u122413
100			_aBrewer, G.
245		4	_aThe burden of proof
260			_c2003
490			_aContract Journal _v417(6418) 19 March 2003, 26(1)
490			_aConstruction News _v (6809) 27 March 2003, 30(1)
520			_aReviews 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.
590			_aABS
650			_aBHP BILLITON PETROLEUM LTD V DALMINE SPA
650			_aBURDEN OF PROOF
650			_aENGINEERING DISPUTES
650			_aGAS PIPELINES
690			_aMANGEMENT-DISPUTE AVOIDANCE, MANAGEMENT AND RESOLUTION-DISPUTE MANAGEMENT AND RESOLUTION
856			_uhttps://www.bailii.org/cgi-bin/markup.cgi?doc=/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2003/170.html&query=bhp+and+billiton+and+petroleum&method=boolean _zView the judgment free of charge at www.bailii.org
942			_n0
999			_c72762 _d72762