Belgium ∙ Belgian Supreme Court Confirms Heavy Burden of Proof to Oppose Disclosure of Leniency Documents to Parties Claiming Damages in Follow-On Proceedings

2018 ◽  
Vol 2 (4) ◽  
pp. 290-292
Author(s):  
J. Dewispelaere ◽  
J. Vuylsteke
Keyword(s):  
Supreme Court ◽  
Burden Of Proof ◽  
Heavy Burden

scholarly journals Does implicit healthcare rationing impose an unfair legal burden on doctors? A study of Portuguese jurisprudence

2020 ◽  
Vol 20 (1) ◽  
pp. 31-57
Author(s):  
Eva Dias Costa ◽  
Micaela Pinho
Keyword(s):  
Healthcare Professionals ◽  
Ethical Dilemmas ◽  
Burden Of Proof ◽  
Qualitative Approach ◽  
Public Records ◽  
The Public ◽  
Heavy Burden ◽  
Healthcare Rationing ◽  
The Impact ◽  
Made In

Healthcare rationing is inevitable, never more so than during the COVID-19 pandemic. In Portugal, rationing is largely implicit and relies too much on bedside decisions, made in stressful circumstances, involving ethical dilemmas and being prone to error. This study uses a qualitative approach by exploring the public records of Portuguese courts for malpractice suits between the years of 2008 and 2019 to ascertain whether the damage suffered by patients in these cases could in any part be attributed to a lack of resources. During this research, we found that a large number of lawsuits against doctors and hospitals might have in fact been the unfortunate result of the constraints of implicit prioritization. We concluded that lawyers and judges must be made aware of the impact of implicit rationing decisions on healthcare professionals, who are judged against a professional standard and an inverse onus rule that places on them a heavy burden of proof.

scholarly journals PENERAPAN ASAS PEMBALIKAN BEBAN PEMBUKTIAN DALAM PENYELESAIAN SENGKETA KONSUMEN

2018 ◽  
Vol 4 (1) ◽  
pp. 91
Author(s):  
Misnar Syam
Keyword(s):  
Supreme Court ◽  
Production Process ◽  
Consumer Protection ◽  
Dispute Settlement ◽  
Burden Of Proof ◽  
Class Action ◽  
Civil Litigation ◽  
Consumer Rights ◽  
Distribution Process

Consumer dispute related to violation of the consumer rights by businessman. Article 45 of Consumer Protection Law provides that the dispute may be settled by out of court dispute settlement or through litigation. In Indonesia, out of court dispute settlement of consumer disputes is conducted under the authority of Consumer Disputes Settlement Body (BPSK), while in litigation mechanism exercised with submission by the consumer personally, class action, or NGO claim. Consumer dispute settlement is part of civil litigation. According to Article 163 HIR/ 283 RBg, the party who alleges that he has a right shall proof his allegation. While, according to Article 19(5) of Consumer Protection Law, the businessman may be exempted from its duty, if it can proof that the damages suffered by the consumer is because of the consumer fault itself. Therefore, the businessman must prove that it did not commit any fault (shifting the burden of proof). The principle of shifting the burden of proof has adopted by Consumer Protection Law because the consumer has no suffi  cient knowledge of materials, production process, and distribution process which done by the businessman regularly. The Consumer Protection Law has no clear provision on the implementation of shifting the burden of proof, while the same situation is also found in Supreme Court Regulation No. 1 of 2006 concerning Appeal on the Judgment of BPSK. Thus, there are inconsistency implementations on the shifting of the burden of proof between on case by case. It depends on the comprehension knowledge of the judges. Such situation may lead to ineffective implementation of Consumer Protection Law.

Fakes v. Republic of Turkey

ICSID Reports ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 19 ◽  
pp. 279-302
Keyword(s):  
International Law ◽  
Burden Of Proof ◽  
Content Type ◽  
Customary International Law ◽  
Applicable Law ◽  
Host State ◽  
Diplomatic Protection ◽  
Heavy Burden ◽  
Legal Fees ◽  
Necessary And Sufficient

279Jurisdiction — Foreign investor — Nationality — ICSID Convention, Article 25 — Dual nationality — Effective nationality — Whether an effective nationality test must be read into Article 25 of the ICSID Convention — Whether the explicit exclusion from jurisdiction of dual nationals who held the nationality of the host State was the only jurisdictional bar related to a natural person’s nationality under the ICSID ConventionApplicable law — Customary international law — Diplomatic protection — Effective nationality — ICSID Convention, Article 27(1) — Whether the rules of customary international law applicable in the context of diplomatic protection applied to determine nationality in investor–State arbitrationJurisdiction — Investment — ICSID Convention, Article 25 — Salini test — Legality — Whether the four elements of the Salini test must necessarily be met to determine the existence of an investment — Whether the three objective criteria of contribution, duration and risk were both necessary and sufficient to define an investment within the framework of the ICSID Convention — Whether the applicable BIT imposed further limits on protected investments — Whether the investment fell within the scope of the requirement of legality under municipal lawJurisdiction — Investment — Shares — Evidence — Burden of proof — Whether the share certificates were valid under the law of the host State — Whether the heavy burden of proof of alleged impropriety was met — Whether the claimant held legal title over the share certificates said to constitute the investmentEvidence — Burden of proof — Impropriety — Whether the burden of proof of any allegations of impropriety was particularly heavyCosts — Frivolous proceedings — ICSID Convention, Article 61(2) — ICSID Arbitration Rule 28 — Whether an arbitral tribunal had discretion in frivolous proceedings to allocate the arbitration costs and the legal fees and expenses between the parties by ordering the losing party to bear in full the costs of the arbitration and the entirety of the legal fees and expenses incurred by both parties

Freedom of Communication in the US and Europe

ICL Journal ◽  
2013 ◽  
Vol 7 (2) ◽  
Author(s):  
Pedro Tenorio
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Supreme Court ◽  
Freedom Of Expression ◽  
Burden Of Proof ◽  
Freedom Of Speech ◽  
The United States ◽  
Constitutional Court ◽  
The Press ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
The Us

AbstractThis paper compares the freedom of communication in the jurisprudence of the Supreme Court of the United States and the European Court of Human Rights, departing from the judgments of the Supreme Court of the United States. It is noted that there are differences, as specified herein. Regulatory texts invite to speak of two distinct models, though this may be a far-fetched statement. This paper makes the following concluding remarks: 1) There are many concepts of freedom of expression that are compatible with democracy; the one derived from the Sullivan Judgment in the US (and in Europe from the Lingens Judgment) is not the only one, although it is currently considered the most consist­ent with democracy. This point is not discussed here. 2) Major changes sometimes occur through seemingly small details. In this sense, the shift of the burden of proof in defama­tion cases (Sullivan) has created an earthquake in the legal regime governing the press. The Sullivan doctrine can be summarized as follows: first, errors are inevitable, as freedom of speech requires ‘breathing room’; second, the malice of those accused of defamation must be proven; third, it is necessary to prove the lack of veracity of the slanderer. This doctrine allows the press to play its role as the watchdog of freedom. 3) In Spain, the press also appears to play this role, thus requiring us to ask whether there is, or ever was, a Sullivan Judgment in Spanish jurisprudence. We tend to attribute the privileged position of the press in Spain to the fact that the Constitutional Court has given preferential consid­eration to freedom of speech when it is in conflict with honor, intimacy and self-image privacy. This preference is justified by its connection to democracy. Since the judgment of the Spanish Constitutional Court (STC hereafter) 6/1981 of 16 March, the Spanish Consti­tutional Court has stressed the importance of freedom of information for democracy, and since the STC 159/1986 of 16 December, the Constitutional Court has suggested the pref­erential position of freedom of expression. However, the incorporation of the Sullivan doc­trine into the Spanish system occurred through STC 6/1988 of 21 January, almost ten years after the passage of the Constitution into law.

Res Ipsa Loquitur: The Australasian Experience

1954 ◽  
Vol 12 (1) ◽  
pp. 118-132
Author(s):  
D. P. O'Connell
Keyword(s):  
New Zealand ◽  
Supreme Court ◽  
Burden Of Proof ◽  
House Of Lords ◽  
Difference Of Opinion ◽  
The Subject ◽  
The Law ◽  
Court Of Appeal ◽  
Res Ipsa Loquitur

Dr. T. Ellis Lewis in this Journal in 1951 discussed the operation of the maxim res ipsa loquitur in relation to the burden of proof and proposed certain conclusions. So thorough was his analysis of the question that one would hesitate to intrude upon the field but for the fact that the problems posed by his article and specifically left open by the House of Lords in Barkway's case have recently been considered by the New Zealand Supreme Court and Court of Appeal. A frank difference of opinion on the nature of res ipsa loquitur manifested itself in each court, and hence no excuse is offered for advancing this discussion, which can only be complementary to that of Dr. Ellis Lewis. Advantage will be taken of the opportunity to consider the Australian contributions to the subject. There is perhaps too little awareness in England that many of the academic battles of the law are regularly being fought out in the Australian and New Zealand courts.

The Heavy Burden of Proof

2014 ◽  
pp. 3-24 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jason Brennan ◽  
Lisa Hill
Keyword(s):  
Burden Of Proof ◽  
Heavy Burden

scholarly journals Medical Negligence Dispute in Malaysia: Choosing Mediation as the Best Constructive Approach to Address the Paradoxes in Medical Negligence Claims

2016 ◽  
Vol 2 (2) ◽  
pp. 202
Author(s):  
Maizatul Farisah Mohd Mokhtar
Keyword(s):  
Dispute Resolution ◽  
Alternative Dispute Resolution ◽  
Burden Of Proof ◽  
Fault System ◽  
Personal Injury ◽  
Medical Negligence ◽  
Constructive Approach ◽  
Medical Practitioners ◽  
Adversarial System ◽  
Heavy Burden

In professional negligence the most challenging and arduous is medical negligence, which consists of various claims. Medical negligence will usually involve doctors and other medical practitioners. In medical negligence the claimant is allowed to bring a personal injury claim to a court which has the jurisdiction under adversarial system. However it is evident from reported cases that medical negligence claims were mostly unsuccessful. The reason lies on the notion of the burden of proof, which cast a heavy burden on the plaintiff according to the fault system. In medical negligence claims, plaintiffs will more often than not, find it very difficult to discharge their burden of proof. In most countries, professional negligence claims are recommended to be dealt with by way of mediation under Alternative Dispute resolution (ADR). Mediation is believed to be easier than litigation and is less complicated. Malaysia is among those countries which has enhanced significantly the utility of ADR. This paper will endeavour to address the problems in proving medical negligence cases by using one of the strongest tools of ADR which is mediation.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document