215 / 262
against an award of £302,433 to Cavendish Woodhouse
(Holdings) Ltd., under the Criminal Injuries Acts.
The award was made in respect of the destruction by
fire of the company's premises at Grafton Street, Dublin,
on the night of March 1st and 2nd, 1971. The amount
of compensation was not in dispute and the only ques-
tion arising on the appeal was as to whether the com-
pany had discharged the onus which was on them, of
proving that the fire, which completely destroyed their
premises, was caused maliciously.
Mr. Justice Pringle, in his judgment, said that the
nature of the proof of malice in order to discharge the
onus was a matter of dispute between the parties, the
company contending that the onus of proof was that
required in civil proceedings (on the balance of proba-
bilities), whereas the respondents contended that the
proof was that required in criminal proceedings (beyond
a reasonable doubt).
Mr. Justice Pringle said he was quite satisfied that the
company's contention was correct and that proof beyond
a reasonable doubt was not required.
The evidence produced as to the origin of the fire,
said Mr. Justice Pringle, had completely satisfied him
(even beyond a reasonable doubt, had this been neces-
sary) that the fire was deliberately caused by some per-
son or persons who planted on the premises an incen-
diary device which was intended to, and did, cause the
fire which destroyed the premises.
He added he was satisfied that the remains of an
incendiary device found in the premises some seven
months after the fire, had survived the fire, and he
rejected the Corporation's suggestion that it had been
planted after the fire.
There had also been evidence that several other fires
had occurred around the same time in other premises in
Dublin in circumstances which tended to suggest they
were started deliberately. These had been at Easons,
Clerys, Arnotts and Roche's Stores. There was, there-
fore, some evidence, at this particular period, that there
was an outbreak of incendiarism in the city. This, in
his opinion, strengthened the company's case.
The decision of the Circuit Court Judge was, in his
opinion, correct and the award made by him must be
affirmed, and the appeal dismissed with costs.
[re Cavendish Woodhouse (Holdings) Ltd.;
The Irish
Times,
2nd October 1973.]
£1,000 Bereavement damages urged for
husbands and wives
-Law Commission Report
Damages of £1,000 for personal bereavement should be
payable to a husband or wife who lost their spouse in an
accident or to parents who have lost a child, says the
Law Commission in a report yesterday.
It is one of several proposals made to Lord Hailsham,
the Lord Chancellor, for improving the rules for assess-
ing and awarding damages in actions for personal
injury or death.
The committee proposes that damages now awarded
for loss of expectation of life should be abolished but
instead the injured person would be compensated for
the loss of income during his lost years, less any sum he
would have spent maintaining himself.
In awarding damages for pain and suffering, courts
would take into account the suffering likely to be caused
to a person by the knowledge that his life has been
shortened.
Actuarial tables proposed
Another proposal is that parties to an action would
be entitled to rely on evidence from actuaries in assessing
future pecuniary loss in such cases as a widow who has
lost the support of her husband or a man disabled by
his injuries.
The commission suggests that the Lord Chancellor,
with advice from an expert committee, could approve
actuarial tables for use in court which would, if possible,
take account of inflation.
Periodic parliamentary payments rejected
It supports the present system under which it is left
to the judges to set the level of damages and rejects the
idea that a legislative tariff to guide the courts should
be laid down and revised periodically by Parliament.
While rejecting proposals that damages should be
awarded in the form of periodic payments instead of in
a lump sum, as at present, it accepts that courts should
be able to make a provisional award to an injured per-
son while authorising him to return to court later for
more money if more serious consequences of his injury
materialise.
The commission did not have within its terms of
reference the question whether the present system for
awarding damages which is based on proof of fault
should be replaced by a system of strict liability or
automatic cover by insurance.
This is now being considered by a Royal Commission.
The five Law Commissioners, headed by Mr. Justice
Cooke, say the aim of their report is to ensure that
compensation for pecuniary loss such as expenses and
loss of earnings is full and that compensation for non-
pecuniary loss such as pain and suffering and loss of
faculties or á limb is seen by the public as being just.
Strong case for damages for bereavement
The commission thought there was a strong case for
allowing recovery of damages for the bereavement
caused by the death of a close relative. It could have
"some slight consoling effect" where parents lose an
infant child or where a spouse loses husband or wife.
It proposes a fixed tariff figure because it was anxious
that there should be no judicial inquiry into the conse-
quences of bereavement but it recognises that the effects
of bereavement could be greater in some cases than in
others.
The Daily Telegraph
(26 July 1973)
212