Betrayal of confidence in the Court of Appeal

In overturning Latham J's judgment in R v Department of Health, Ex Parte Source Informatics Ltd. that anonymisation does not obviate breaching a personal confidence, the Court of Appeal holds that where the duty of confidence arises in equity it does not prohibit the confidant using the confided information without the consent of the confider if this does not treat the confider unfairly (relative to the Court's view of the confider's legitimate interests). We argue that this principle--by bringing fairness to bear on the scope of the duty of confidence rather than on whether a breach of it may be lawful--has no authority in usable precedents; that the Court's interpretation of fairness in applying this principle is, in any event, incompatible with the Data Protection Act 1998 (in part because the Court has too narrow a conception of privacy); that the Court errs in holding that neither anonymisation of personal data nor use of anonymous data falls under the Data Protection Act; and that the Court's insensitivity to the vulnerability that leads patients to disclose information about themselves to health professionals for their treatment, leads it to misidentify the basis of the duty of confidence in such disclosures. The Court of Appeal's reasoning does not clarify the duty of confidence, but virtually abolishes it in the face of competing commercial and research interests.     

从3起医疗纠纷案件谈医疗纠纷诉讼案件的举证责任

《最高人民法院关于民事诉讼证据的若干规定》中第 4条第 8项规定 :“因医疗行为引起的侵权诉讼 ,由医疗机构就医疗行为与损害结果之间不存在因果关系及不存在医疗过错承担举证责任”。规定了医疗机构在医疗行为侵权诉讼中的举证责任。这是中国司法中的巨大改革 ,有利于医疗侵权的受害者主张自己的权利 ,要求医疗机构及其工作人员依法、依规范行医 ,并依法举证维护自己的权利 ,体现了司法公正 ,充分保护弱者 ,是司法的一大进步。但在司法实践中 ,医疗纠纷案件 ,是否都是医疗侵权案件 ,是否都由医疗机构承担举证责任 ,这也是司法实践中不可回…     

从3起医疗纠纷案件谈医疗纠纷诉讼案件的举证责任

<最高人民法院关于民事诉讼证据的若干规定>中第4条第8项规定:"因医疗行为引起的侵权诉讼,由医疗机构就医疗行为与损害结果之间不存在因果关系及不存在医疗过错承担举证责任".规定了医疗机构在医疗行为侵权诉讼中的举证责任.这是中国司法中的巨大改革, 有利于医疗侵权的受害者主张自己的权利,要求医疗机构及其工作人员依法、依规范行医, 并依法举证维护自己的权利,体现了司法公正,充分保护弱者,是司法的一大进步.但在司法实践中,医疗纠纷案件,是否都是医疗侵权案件,是否都由医疗机构承担举证责任,这也是司法实践中不可回避的问题.有些法院,将医疗纠纷案件都作为医疗侵权诉讼立案审理, 都要求医疗机构承担举证责任,医疗机构及其工作人员虽说具有医学知识优势,也不能完全做到举证.     

论商业秘密侵权纠纷案件的举证责任

商业秘密侵权纠纷案件的举证责任,在权利人方面是合法拥有商业秘密的证明;被控方存在侵权行为的证明;被控方使用不正当手段获得商业秘密的证明。在被控方,举证责任则是行为是否具有正当化事由的证明。     

犯罪构成与证明责任

犯罪构成理论与证明责任理论可以互补.三阶层递进式犯罪构成理论可以作为证明贡任分配的合理标准.构成要件该当性具有违法性和有责性的推定机能.控诉方应承担构成要件该当性的提出责任和超出合理怀疑的说服责任,被告方承担构成要件阻却和违法阻却事由的提出责任,且要让人产生合理怀疑.被告方负有提出责任阻却事由的责任及优势证据的说服责任.通过证明责任理论,可以说明主观构成要素的合理性,理清推定故意和过失的本质.同时,本文也对事实错误与禁止错误、修正构成要件与特殊构成要件的证明责任进行了讨论.     

修正辩论主义与武器平等的证明责任

修正辩论主义为证明责任理论中武器平等原则的实现提供了新的契机。法官对双方当事人的主观证明责任进行干预在公益诉讼等现代型诉讼中具有相当的必要性,有利于平衡双方利益。为实现武器平等原则,在证据事实提出方面,强调法官的释明权和当事人证据协力义务的合理运用。另外,非讼法理和自由证明方式向诉讼程序的扩张,也是构建武器平等的证明责任理论与制度有效路径。     

Markem v Zipher--the Court of Appeal provides guidance on entitlement proceedings

Legal and practical context. The Markem v Zipher Court of Appealjudgment provides useful guidance on patent entitlement proceedingsand, more generally, on the conduct of litigation. Key points. (i) Patent entitlement. To bring an entitlementaction under sections 8, 12, and 37 a party must invoke a breachof some rule of law. Validity is only relevant in entitlementproceedings where a patent or part of it is clearly and unarguablyinvalid. A claim-by-claim approach is not appropriate in proceedingsunder sections 8, 12, and 37 and ‘invention’ inthese sections refers to information in the specification. Theproper approach to entitlement should be to identify who contributedto the invention and determine whether he has any rights tothe invention. (ii) Litigation generally. A witness should be cross-examinedas to the truthfulness of his evidence whenever a party wishesto challenge that evidence. Where a party has more than onecause of action relating to the same factual background, considerationshould be given to bringing all causes of action in the sameproceedings to avoid a future claim being struck out for abuseof process. Practical significance. This case highlights the importanceof a properly pleaded case and of the ongoing need to reviewthe case strategy throughout proceedings.     

Court of Appeal hears 'huge money' divorce case involving offshore trusts

On 7 March, Mr and Mrs John Charman's ‘huge money’divorce reached the Court of Appeal. Last year insurance magnateJohn Charman was ordered by the High Court to pay his formerwife £48 million in what is thought to be the biggestdivorce award in legal history. (See Trusts & Trustees,Volume 12, Issue 9, November 2006, High-value divorces and trusts,p 22, by James Freeman of Speechly Bircham LLP). James Freeman, family law solicitor at City law firm SpeechlyBircham LLP (tel. 020 7427 6584), commented on the case:

TheCourt of Appeal will rule on how parties with unusually highwealth, including offshore trust assets, should be treated ondivorce.     

知识产权诉讼中的举证责任问题

我国专利法第60条第(二)款规定:在发生专利纠纷的时候,如果发明专利是一项新产品的制造方法,制造同样产品的单位或个人应当提供其产品制造方法的证明。这是专利诉讼中关于举证责任分担的特殊规定。在知识产权诉讼中,由于权利客体的无形性、权利人无法接近侵权人所掌握的证据等原因,使得权利人在某些情况下往往难以举证。出于这一原因,我国专利法第60条第(二)款作了上述规定,一般称之为“举证责任倒置”。     

BC Court of Appeal refuses to reduce sentence for HIV-positive prisoner

On 9 May 2002, the BC Court of Appeal released its decision in a prisoner's sentencing appeal where the Crown and the defence agreed that the original sentence was illegal, and differed in their positions as to the appropriate sentence by only one day. That one day meant the difference between serving the sentence in a provincial jail as opposed to a federal penitentiary.     

行政诉讼证据制度中人民法院权力解析

人民法院行政诉讼权力配置可分为法定意义上的权力配置和实践意义上的权力配置。人民法院在行政诉讼证据制度中权力结构的最初型态表现为:自治权力、准许权和责令权、认定权、证据调取决定权、委托权和纠正权。行政诉讼证据制度中人民法院的权力结构要素是:人民法院,行政诉讼的证据,证据权力的运用,行政诉讼当事人和证据事项。人民法院在行政诉讼证据制度中的权力表明:行政诉讼构造模式仍以职权主义为主导,人民法院是以平衡和调节当事人在行政诉讼证据制度中的能力和机会来实现行政诉讼证据制度的目的的。     

BHB falls at the final hurdle (UK Court of Appeal)

In July 2005 the Court of Appeal allowed William Hill's appealagainst Laddie J's decision that the company infringed BHB'sdatabase right in pre-race data by publishing lists of horsesrunning in races on its website; the significance of this case,though, goes far beyond William Hill's website.     

不完全给付之证明责任探究

在对不完全给付各要件证明责任的讨论中,最具争议的是可归责性要件的证明责任分配。德国和日本学界主张可归责性事由为债务人的免责事由,应当由债务人负责举证。而我国台湾地区学者认为根据证明责任的一般分配原则,该要件的证明责任应当由债权人承担,但在具体案件中出现证明责任倒置的情况时则由债务人承担。目前我国法律条文尚未对不完全给付的证明责任进行明文规定,所以应当依证明责任的一般分配原则由债权人进行举证。继而为了减轻弱势方的证明负担,法官应当运用经验法则、表见证明等原理;证明妨碍规则和案件事实解明义务也可以帮助法官认定事实。