Emmanuel v Avison & Ors

Emmanuel v Avison & Ors

The burden of proof lay with Ms Emmanuel as claimant seeking declarations of forgery and removal of the charge. The trial judge was entitled to resort to the burden of proof after finding the evidence inconclusive. No material error or deficiency in the judgment warranted appellate intervention or a retrial. The appeal was dismissed.

Parties
Appellant: Claudia Zelena Emmanuel; Respondent: Andrew Avison; Respondent: Ginny Avison; Respondent: Glenrick White
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
08 July 2020
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Judgment on Appeal
Outcome
appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Burden of Proof, Forgery, Land Registration, Standard of Proof, Delay in Judgment

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

Parties

Claudia Zelena Emmanuel

Appellant

Andrew Avison

Respondent

Ginny Avison

Respondent

Glenrick White

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Judgment on Appeal

  1. 1 Whether the trial judge erred in resorting to the burden of proof to resolve the dispute over alleged forgery of signatures on loan and charge documents.
  2. 2 Whether the burden of proof was correctly placed on the claimant (Ms Emmanuel) or should have been on the respondents.
  3. 3 Whether the trial judge failed to make necessary findings of fact or gave inadequate reasons for his conclusions.

Ratio Decidendi

The burden of proof lay with Ms Emmanuel as claimant seeking declarations of forgery and removal of the charge. The trial judge was entitled to resort to the burden of proof after finding the evidence inconclusive. No material error or deficiency in the judgment warranted appellate intervention or a retrial. The appeal was dismissed.

Court Disposition

appeal dismissed