Sentences with phrase «acted on the balance of probabilities»

As the judge correctly stated, this involved considering how Levicom would have acted in the hypothetical circumstances that Linklaters» advice was not negligent: Levicom had to show how they would have acted on the balance of probabilities, and also that there was a substantial chance that the Swedish companies would have agreed to settle on terms that Levicom would have accepted.

That involved considering how the claimant would have acted in the hypothetical circumstances that the defendant's advice was not negligent: the claimant had to show how they would have acted on the balance of probabilities, and also that there was a substantial chance that the Swedish companies would have agreed to settle on terms that the claimant would have accepted: Allied Maples Group v Simmons & Simmons [1995] 4 All ER 907.

Not exact matches

The plaintiff must show on a balance of probabilities that «but for» the defendant's negligent act, the injury would not have occurred.

The only real difference between the crime (s 2 of the Protection from Harassment Act 1997) and the tort (s 3) is standard of proof: to prove the civil wrong of harassment it is necessary to prove the case on a balance of probabilities.

For an injury claimant to succeed under the Occupiers Liability Act, she must prove on the balance of probabilities that the landlady was an occupier of the premises where and when the accident occurred, that the landlady breached a duty of care owed to the claimant that the landlady's breach caused the claimant's injury, and that the plaintiff suffered a loss.

In order to satisfy the requirements of the first component of publication, the plaintiff must establish, on a balance or probabilities, that the hyperlinker performed a deliberate act that made defamatory information readily available to a third party in a comprehensible form.

The Act applies in personal injury cases where the court finds that the claimant is entitled to damages but, upon an application by the defendant, the court is satisfied, on the balance of probabilities, that the claimant has been «fundamentally dishonest» in relation to the primary claim or a related claim.

The plaintiff who alleges that she would have acted differently had she received appropriate advice must show on a balance of probabilities that if properly advised she would have proceeded in a manner that avoided the damages suffered.

Section 2 (4) makes it clear that «any question whether a person lacks capacity within the meaning of this Act must be decided on the balance of probabilities».

Compounding the risk for landlords under s. 57 is that if, within one year after the tenant vacates the rental unit, the designated person fails to occupy the rental unit within a reasonable period of time and the landlord lists the rental unit for rent; or enters into a tenancy agreement with another person; or advertises the rental unit or the building that contains the rental unit for sale; or demolishes the rental unit or the building containing the rental unit; or «takes any step to convert the rental unit or the building containing the rental unit» to a use other than residential premises; then, the landlord is «presumed, unless the contrary is proven on a balance of probabilities,» to have acted in bad faith in giving the notice and is therefore liable to the penalties provided for in s. 57 (3).

Once the Crown Attorney has proven beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant committed the act, it is then open to the defendant to prove, on a balance of probabilities, that he or she took reasonable care to prevent the harm from occurring, or, in other words, was not negligent.

Part V of the Act, as interpreted by the Supreme Court in CCD v. VIA, thereupon shifted the onus to the carriers to prove on a balance of probabilities that the obstacle was not «undue» and that offering a IPIF policy would cause them «undue hardship.»

The hospital was not able to show that there was no evidence upon which a trial judge, acting properly could have found causation established on the balance of probability, so the case was sent back for a new trial, only on the issue of whether the nurses» negligence was a cause of the child's injury.

3) The plaintiff who alleges that she would have acted differently had she received appropriate advice must show, on a balance of probabilities, that if properly advised she would have proceeded in a manner that avoided the damages suffered.

However, section 193 (1) of the Highway Traffic Act applies a «reverse onus» requiring the driver of a motor vehicle who collides with a pedestrian or cyclist to prove, on a balance of probabilities that the collision did not arise from their negligence or improper conduct.

For the Court of Appeal, the Application Judge's finding — on a balance of probabilities — that Mr. Bourgeois was acting as a cash courier was based on factors beyond the mere discovery of the money.

«Based on the evidence before me, I am not satisfied on a balance of probabilities that you were advised of your right to a second test as required by the Act.»

Nevertheless, it continues, «In this case, H has failed to prove, on a balance of probabilities, that the Minister acted in bad faith or with serious recklessness in reviewing his applications for mercy.

``... the tort of civil fraud has four elements, which must be proven on a balance of probabilities: (1) a false representation by the defendant; (2) some level of knowledge of the falsehood of the representation on the part of the defendant (whether knowledge or recklessness); (3) the false representation caused the plaintiff to act; (4) the plaintiff's actions resulted in a loss.»

Section 57 of the Criminal Justice and Courts Act 2015 gives the court the power to dismiss a claim for damages where it is satisfied that, on the balance of probabilities, the claimant has been «fundamentally dishonest» in relation to the claim, unless the claimant would otherwise suffer «substantial injustice».

The leading case on civil fraud in Canada is the Supreme Court of Canada decision in 2014 in Hryniak v. Mauldin, 2014 SCC 7, and in that case civil fraud is defined this way ``... the tort of civil fraud has four elements, which must be proven on a balance of probabilities: (1) a false representation by the defendant; (2) some level of knowledge of the falsehood of the representation on the part of the defendant (whether knowledge or recklessness); (3) the false representation caused the plaintiff to act; and (4) the plaintiff's actions resulted in a loss.»

Although as Andrew Smith J found, solicitors will not be found to have been negligent if their advice steps outside a permissible range, once they do, the client will be in a position to claim substantial damages if it can prove on the balance of probabilities that it would have acted differently had it received advice within the permissible range.