The Evidence Sample Clauses

The Evidence. 27. At the trial the Court heard evidence from Xx Xxxxxx Xxxxxxxx (Claimant), Xx Xxxxx Xxxxxxxx, Xx Xxxxx Xxxxxxxxx, Xx Xxxxxxx Xxxxxx (the Second Defendant) and Xx Xxxxxx Xxxxxxxxx (the Fourth Defendant).
The Evidence. 7. The Claimant relied on the evidence of Xx. Xxxxxxx Xxxxxx and Xx. Xxxxxxx Xxxxxxx. The Defendant relied on the evidence of Xx. Xxxxx Xxxxxx and Xx. Xxxxxxx Xxxxxx.
The Evidence. 7. As to general damages, the court accepted the evidence set out in the medical reports as fully defining the parameters of the claimant’s injuries and resulting disabilities. These were not major, life threatening or severe bone injuries but they significantly affected her life. The claimant gave evidence of unceasing pain in the sacral region from the waist down to her toes; pain in her head; severe neck spasms and shooting pains from the right buttocks down to her heel. Her evidence was accepted that she was in the throes of constant headaches and pains in her body. Evidence of the claimant’s pain and suffering also found expression, to some 2(1965) 7 WIR 491 xxxxxx, in the evidence of Xx Xxxxxxx who described observing her in the waiting room and during his examination of her.
The Evidence. 10. The defendant called four witnesses including himself – Xxxxxx Xxxxxxxxx, Xxx Xxxxx Xxxxxxxxx, Xxxxxx Xxxxxxxx and Andomida Massiah Boochoon. Their witness statements were tendered as evidence in chief and they were cross examined. The Third party called Xxxxxxx Xxxxx. His witness statement filed on September 23, 2011 was put into evidence. He was not cross examined.
The Evidence. On Behalf of the Plaintiff 11 Xx Xxxxxxxx was the first witness called by the plaintiff. He is and was at all material times the sole director of Kallenia. He has known Xx Xxxxx since about 1992. He said that in 1997, at Xxxxxxxx's request, Xxxxx agreed to make an application for the grant of an exploration licence over ground in which Richmond, as a director of Kallenia, had an interest. The reason that he asked Xxxxx to make the application in Xxxxx'x name was that Xxxxxxxx believed that any application made in his name or in the name of Xxxxxxxx for the grant of a mining tenement would attract objections merely as a consequence of having been made in the name of either himself or Xxxxxxxx. Xxxxxxxx said that it was agreed between himself and Xxxxx that if a tenement was granted, Xxxxx would hold it on trust for both Xxxxxxxx and Xxxxx; Xxxxx having a 10 per cent beneficial interest and Xxxxxxxx having a 90 per cent beneficial interest. He said that it was agreed that, on behalf of Kallenia, Xxxxxxxx was to pay all fees charged by the Mines Department for lodgment of the application. Xxxxxxxx gave evidence about having received from Xxxxx copies of documents, being forms prescribed for purposes of the Mining Act 1978 (WA) (“the Act”) and the Mining Regulations 1981(“the Regulations”) which had all been signed by Xxxxx in connection with the application for the exploration licence. Those documents were a withdrawal form showing Xxxxx as being the applicant in respect of E80/2350 and describing the interest being transferred as "Exploration Licence 80/2350", a surrender form showing the details of the mining tenement as "Exploration Licence 80/2350" and showing the holder as being Xxxxx. Each of those three documents had been signed by a witness. The documents were produced in evidence. The documents had only been signed by Xxxxx and the witnesses thereto. Both Xxxxxxxx and Xxxxx (when he gave evidence later) were uncertain and unclear as to precisely when those documents had been given to Richmond. I perceived the evidence of both of them, however, as being to the effect that it was the intention of both Xxxxxxxx and Xxxxx that, by the giving of those documents to Richmond, the future control of the application for the grant of the tenement and of any tenement granted as a consequence of the application having been made would pass to, and remain with, Richmond. 12 It was common ground that at the time when application E80/2350 was lodged by Xxxxx, namely,...
The Evidence. The claimants’ evidence 2 Paragraph 4 In support of its claim the claimants filed witness statements from 5 witnesses namely:
The Evidence. 24. At the hearing, the Court heard evidence from the Claimant, Xx Xxxxx Xxxxxx, Xx Xxxxxxx Xxxxxxx-Roberts, Xx Xxxxx Xxxxxxxx and Xx Xxxxx Xxxxxxxx, who was the Court appointed expert witness. The Issues;
The Evidence. 8. During the trial for the matter, the Court heard evidence from the Claimant and Xx Xxxxx Xxxxxxxx.
The Evidence. 22. The Claimant called one witness, Xx. Xxxx Xxxxxxx whose witness statement was filed on the 8th July 2011. Both Defendants relied on one witness, the Second Defendant, Xxx. Xxxxxxx Xxxxxxxxxxx. Her evidence in chief was contained in her witness statement which was filed on the 8th July 2011.
The Evidence. 21. To restate the obvious; the burden lies with the Claimant on a balance of probabilities in Civil matters. The Claimant in its written submissions to this court sets out what it perceives as the evidence upon which this case turns in favour of the Claimant.