- Applied — Balwant Singh Gill v Jashpal Singh Thind & Ors 2023-11-02
“…ommittal) proceedings aside, the standard of proof in civil cases is always the balance of probabilities: Re B (Children) (Care Proceedings: Standard of Proof) [2008] UKHL 35, [2009] 1 AC 11. No different standard of proof applies to proving an oral declaration of trust. I do not think that Scarman LJ meant to say anything different…”
- Cited — EY (Fact-finding hearing), Re 2023-10-27
“…conclusively established in case law that a finding that a child is suffering significant harm must be based on facts found on a balance of probabilities: Re B [2008] UKHL 35. It is equally well established that a likelihood of significant harm “means a real possibility, a possibility that cannot sensibly be ignored having regard to…”
- Cited — T (Fact-Finding: Second Appeal) 2023-05-05
“…He cited a passage from Lord Hoffmann’s speech/opinion in Re B [2008] UKHL 35 paragraph 15:…”
- Cited — A v B & Anor. 2023-03-07
“…e relating to the attendance of children to give evidence in Family proceedings) which the authors of the document wrongly attribute to a different case, ‘Re B [2008] UKHL 35’. If the content of this apparently agreed summary of the applicable law is representative of the support offered to the recorder by the three counsel who appe…”
- Cited — Re H (Parents with Learning Difficulties: Risk of Harm) 2023-02-02
“…[2008] UKHL 35, [2009] 1 AC 11 and…”
- Applied — Re C & Ors (Care Proceedings: Fact Finding) 2023-01-26
“…f H’s injuries, the judge failed to apply the correct approach to the burden and standard of proof. Ms Meyer cited the well-known dicta of Lord Hoffman in Re B [2008] UKHL 35, [2009] 1 AC 11 (at paragraph 2):…”
- Disapproved — RE A (CHILDREN) (POOL OF PERPETRATORS) 2022-10-17
“…rd of Proof) [1996] 1 All ER1 (“Re H”). The same issue came before the House of Lords again in Re B (Care Proceedings: Standard of Proof) (Cafcass Intervening) [2008] UKHL 35, [2009] 1 AC 11 (“Re B”). Baroness Hale, giving the lead speech, disapproved a formula which had been adopted by many courts following the speech of Lord Nicho…”
- Cited — Saleh Ibrahim Mabrouk v John Murray 2022-07-12
“…ni v Thompson [2017] EWHC 432 (QB). In a civil case, whatever the background, the standard of proof is always the balance of probabilities: see Re B (Children) [2008] UKHL 35; [2009] 1 AC 11, in particular at [13] and [70].…”
- Cited — Re AZ (A Child) (Recusal) 2022-07-05
“… The mother’s dishonest and manipulative conduct was therefore part of the established factual matrix of the case. As Lord Hoffmann observed in Re B (Children) [2008] UKHL 35, [2009] AC 1 at paragraph 2:…”
- Cited — Dansingani & Anor v Canara Bank 2021-05-20
“…bility or otherwise of the allegations depended on the context in which they made, relying upon the well-known observations of Lord Hoffmann in Re B (Children) [2008] UKHL 35, [2009] 1 AC 11 at [72]. The…”
- Cited — H-N And Others (Children) (Domestic Abuse: Finding of Fact Hearings) (Rev 2) 2021-03-30
“…Proceedings: Standard of Proof) [2008] UKHL 35, Baroness Hale at paragraph 32).…”
- Cited — Gray v Global Energy Horizons Corporation 2020-12-09
“…This passage does not propound a principle or a rule of law. In Re B (Children) (Care Proceedings: Standard of Proof) [2008] UKHL 35, [2009] 1 AC 11, Lord Hoffmann, referring to this passage, said at [15]: “Lord Nicholls was not laying down any rule of law. There is only one rule of law, nam…”
- Applied — CTD (A Child: Rehearing) 2020-10-14
“…plicant/appellant was a potential perpetrator of any of the injuries suffered the judge applied the wrong standard of proof, relying solely on the case of Re B [2008] UKHL 35 and taking no account of the subsequent case of R (D) v Life Sentence Review Commissioners [2008] UKHL…”
- Cited — Bank St Petersburg PJSC & Anor v Arkhangelsky & Anor 2020-03-18
“…This is clear from the judgment of the House of Lords in In re B (Children) [2008] UKHL 35, [2009] 1 AC 11. Lord Hoffmann said:…”
- Cited — I (Children: Child Assessment Order) 2020-02-28
“…Re B (Children) [2008] UKHL 35, [2008] 2 FLR 141 where Baroness Hale referred to this passage and said at [39]:…”
- Cited — D (Fact-finding appeal) 2019-12-20
“…B (Children) (Care Proceedings: Standard of Proof)[2008] UKHL 35 (paragraph…”
- Cited — A (No. 2) (Children: Findings of Fact) 2019-11-14
“…The starting point, as King LJ said in this case, citing Baroness Hale in Re B (Minors) [2008] UKHL 35; [2009] 1 AC 11 at [70], remains that the facts must be proved on the simple balance of probability. Neither the seriousness of the allegations nor the serious…”
- Cited — Maughan, R (On the Application Of) v Her Majesty's Senior Coroner for Oxfordshire 2019-05-10
“…cision of the House of Lords in the case of re H (Minors) [1996] AC 563, as confirmed and supplemented by the decision of the House of Lords in re B (Children) [2008] UKHL 35, [2009] 1 AC 11. It is in fact noticeable that both those cases were care proceedings involving children and so did not just represent a private lis between pa…”
- Doubted — B (Children : Uncertain Perpetrator) (Rev 1) 2019-04-04
“…stablished on the basis of proven facts. Doubts or suspicions are not enough. These general principles were reaffirmed by the House of Lords in Re B (Children) [2008] UKHL 35.…”
- Applied — Y and E (Children) (Sexual Abuse Allegations), Re 2019-02-21
“…t concludes that the allegation is established on the balance of probability”. For the last 10 years, however, since the decision of the House of Lords in Re B [2008] UKHL 35, judges have been enjoined to apply the civil standard of proof without qualification. The guiding principle was stated by Baroness Hale of Richmond at paragra…”
- Cited — Shagang Shipping Company Ltd v HNA Group Company Ltd 2018-07-23
“… how the court should approach evidence of torture when it is used to impugn admissions, in the light of Re A (No 2) and In Re B (Children) (Standard of Proof) [2008] UKHL 35 (“Re B”).…”
- Cited — Rees & Ors v Commissioner of Police for the Metropolis 2018-07-05
“…trial judge’s findings of primary fact, contrary to the principles re-stated in McGraddie v McGraddie [2013] 1 WLR 2477 (to which one might add Re B (Children) [2008] UKHL 35 and Henderson v Foxworth Investments Limited [2014] UKSC 41). I would emphasise at the outset that this judgment is founded entirely upon the primary facts fou…”