BHP Billiton Petroleum Ltd. & Ors v Dalmine SpA [2003] EWCA Civ 170 (19 February 2003)

BHP Billiton Petroleum Ltd. & Ors v Dalmine SpA [2003] EWCA Civ 170 (19 February 2003)

Where a defendant asserts that a hypothetical pipeline made solely of compliant pipes would have failed in any event, the burden of proof rests on the defendant to establish that proposition. The claimant need only prove that the actual loss was caused by the defendant's wrongdoing, not disprove hypothetical alternatives.

Citation
[2003] EWCA Civ 170
Parties
Claimants/respondents: BHP Billiton Petroleum Ltd & Others; Defendant/appellant: Dalmine SpA
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
19 February 2003
Procedural Posture
Appeal From Commercial Court (queen's Bench Division) / Court of Appeal Judgment
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Fraudulent Misrepresentation, Causation, Burden of Proof, Deceit, Damages
Commercial Law Tort Law Fraudulent Misrepresentation Causation Burden of Proof Deceit Damages

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 9 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

BHP Billiton Petroleum Ltd & Others

Claimants/respondents

Dalmine SpA

Defendant/appellant

Procedural Posture

Appeal From Commercial Court (queen's Bench Division) / Court of Appeal Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the incorporation of non-compliant pipe caused the pipeline to fail or whether it would have failed anyway
  2. 2 Which party bears the burden of proof regarding hypothetical pipeline failure with compliant pipes

Ratio Decidendi

Where a defendant asserts that a hypothetical pipeline made solely of compliant pipes would have failed in any event, the burden of proof rests on the defendant to establish that proposition. The claimant need only prove that the actual loss was caused by the defendant's wrongdoing, not disprove hypothetical alternatives.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Appellant to pay respondents' costs of the appeal, subject to detailed assessment on the standard basis.
  • Appellant to make an interim payment of £100,000 to respondents by 4.30pm on 5 March 2003.