Kashi (t/a Tantalizing Face and Body Clinic) v Mustafa [2011] EWHC 2701 (QB) (21 October 2011)

Kashi (t/a Tantalizing Face and Body Clinic) v Mustafa [2011] EWHC 2701 (QB) (21 October 2011)

The trial judge correctly applied the burden and standard of proof, made findings of fact supported by evidence, properly exercised discretion in refusing to admit fresh evidence and in managing the trial procedure, and was entitled to infer the existence of the laser machine from the evidence. No error of law or serious procedural irregularity was established.

Citation
[2011] EWHC 2701 (QB)
Parties
Appellant/defendant: Dhiaa Kashi (t/a Tantalizing Face and Body Clinic); Respondent/claimant: Miss Shahinaz Mustafa
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
21 October 2011
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal (personal Injury Negligence) / Appeal From County Court Judgment
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Negligence, Standard of Proof, Procedural Irregularity, Admissibility of Fresh Evidence, Assessment of Witness Credibility
Tort Law Personal Injury Civil Procedure Negligence Standard of Proof Procedural Irregularity Admissibility of Fresh Evidence Assessment of Witness Credibility

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 3 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Dhiaa Kashi (t/a Tantalizing Face and Body Clinic)

Appellant/defendant

Miss Shahinaz Mustafa

Respondent/claimant

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal (personal Injury Negligence) / Appeal From County Court Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the trial judge erred in law regarding the burden and standard of proof
  2. 2 Whether the trial judge erred in fact regarding the date of the incident
  3. 3 Whether fresh evidence should be admitted on appeal

Ratio Decidendi

The trial judge correctly applied the burden and standard of proof, made findings of fact supported by evidence, properly exercised discretion in refusing to admit fresh evidence and in managing the trial procedure, and was entitled to infer the existence of the laser machine from the evidence. No error of law or serious procedural irregularity was established.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed
  • Order of the County Court affirmed