Young v Rank
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Date | 1950 |
| Year | 1950 |
| Court | King's Bench Division |
-
- This document is available in original version only for vLex customers
View this document and try vLex for 7 days - TRY VLEX
- This document is available in original version only for vLex customers
23 cases
-
Carmichele v Minister of Safety and Security and Another (Centre for Applied Legal Studies Intervening)
...E (a minor) v Dorset County Council and Other Appeals [1995] 2 AC 633 (HL) ([1995] 3 All ER 353): not followed Young v Rank and Others [1950] 2 KB 510: compared J 2001 (4) SA p945 Statutes Considered Statutes A The Constitution of the Republic of South Africa Act 108 of 1996, ss 8(1), 39(2)......
-
Smart v the Gleaner Company Ltd and Sibblies
...could postpone its ruling until the evidence for the defence had been called. 156 Thirdly, Dr. Barnett further submitted that the case of Young v. Rank [1950] 2 K.B. 510 at pp 512, 513 and 514 is of importance and that it makes a clear distinction between when a judge is sitting alone and w......
- Yui Chin Song & 4 Ors v Lee Ming Chai & 5 Ors
-
Payne v Harrison
...intcertain classes of case of which this is not one) unless the defendant elects to call no evidence. In ( Young v. Rank 1950 2 King's Bench, page 510), however, Mr. Justice Devlin concluded that he had a discretion in a jury case, to rule without making the defendant elect. 13 In Marbe v. ......
Request a trial to view additional results
1 books & journal articles
-
LEGAL BURDEN OF PROOF AND EVIDENTIAL BURDEN OF PROOF, DISTINCTION BETWEEN
...a partys case. If at the end of trial, he has failed to establish these to the appropriate standard, he will lose. Young v. Rank (1950) 2 K.B. 510. The incidence of this burden is usually clear from the pleadings, it usually being incumbent upon the plaintiff to prove what he contends as t......