Hearing in UK Law

In this Topic
Leading Cases
  • Owners of SS. "Hontestroom" v Owners of SS. "Sagaporack."
    • House of Lords
    • 20 juil. 1926

    None the less, not to have seen the witnesses puts appellate judges in a permanent position of disadvantage as against the trial judge, and, unless it can be shown that he has failed to use or has palpably misused his advantage, the higher Court ought not to take the responsibility of reversing conclusions so arrived at, merely on the result of their own comparisons and criticisms of the witnesses and of their own view of the probabilities of the case.

  • G v G (Minors: Custody Appeal)
    • House of Lords
    • 25 avr. 1985

    All these various expressions were used in order to emphasise the point that the appellate court should only interfere when they consider that the judge of first instance has not merely preferred an imperfect solution which is different from an alternative imperfect solution which the Court of Appeal might or would have adopted, but has exceeded the generous ambit within which a reasonable disagreement is possible.

  • Biogen Inc. v Medeva Plc
    • House of Lords
    • 31 oct. 1996

    His expressed findings are always surrounded by a penumbra of imprecision as to emphasis, relative weight, minor qualification and nuance ( as Renan said, la v�rit� est dans une nuance), of which time and language do not permit exact expression, but which may play an important part in the judge's overall evaluation.

  • Locobail (U.K.) Ltd v Bayfield Properties Ltd
    • Court of Appeal (Civil Division)
    • 17 nov. 1999

    By contrast, a real danger of bias might well be thought to arise if there were personal friendship or animosity between the judge and any member of the public involved in the case; or if the judge were closely acquainted with any member of the public involved in the case, particularly if the credibility of that individual could be significant in the decision of the case; or if, in a case where the credibility of any individual were an issue to be decided by the judge, he had in a previous case rejected the evidence of that person in such outspoken terms as to throw doubt on his ability to approach such person's evidence with an open mind on any later occasion; or if on any question at issue in the proceedings before him the judge had expressed views, particularly in the course of the hearing, in such extreme and unbalanced terms as to throw doubt on his ability to try the issue with an objective judicial mind (see Vakauta v. Kelly (1989) 167 CLR 568); or if, for any other reason, there were real ground for doubting the ability of the judge to ignore extraneous considerations, prejudices and predilections and bring an objective judgment to bear on the issues before him.

  • Benmax v Austin Motor Company Ltd
    • House of Lords
    • 20 jan. 1955

    But I cannot help thinking that some confusion may have arisen from failure to distinguish between the finding of a specific fact and a finding of fact which is really an inference from facts specifically found, or, as it has sometimes been said, between the perception and evaluation of facts.

  • South Cone Inc. v Bessant and Others (t/a Reef)
    • Court of Appeal (Civil Division)
    • 28 mai 2002

    It is not suggested that he was not experienced in this field, and there is nothing in the Civil Procedure Rules to diminish the degree of respect which has traditionally been shown to a hearing officer's specialised experience. In such circumstances an appellate court should in my view show a real reluctance, but not the very highest degree of reluctance, to interfere in the absence of a distinct and material error of principle.

  • English v Emery Reimbold & Strick Ltd
    • Court of Appeal (Civil Division)
    • 30 avr. 2002

    It follows that, if the appellate process is to work satisfactorily, the judgment must enable the appellate court to understand why the Judge reached his decision. This does not mean that every factor which weighed with the Judge in his appraisal of the evidence has to be identified and explained. But the issues the resolution of which were vital to the Judge's conclusion should be identified and the manner in which he resolved them explained.

See all results
Legislation
See all results
Books & Journal Articles
  • Awaiting Court Hearing
    • Num. 5-2, June 1972
    • Journal of Criminology (formerly Australian and New Zealand Journal of Criminology)
  • A fair ‘hearing
    • Num. 21-3, July 2017
    • International Journal of Evidence & Proof, The
    Voice identification evidence, identifying an offender by the sound of their voice, is sometimes the only means of identifying someone who has committed a crime. Auditory memory is, however, associ...
  • The Preliminary Hearing: Canadian Practice
    • Num. 1-1, January 1937
    • Journal of Criminal Law, The
  • Hearing voices and befriending schemes
    • Num. 15-4, November 2011
    • Mental Health and Social Inclusion
    • 160-164
    Purpose: This Research Watch seeks to summarise two recent research papers. The first examines the case for understanding hearing voices as part of normal experience, while the second looks at befr...
See all results
Law Firm Commentaries
See all results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT