Article 84/1: Burden of proof and presumptions

Décisions de la Cour suprême interprétant cette section

1. Arrêt de la Cour suprême n° 514/2567 (2024)

   A party asserting a fact, such as a debtor claiming a loan has been fully repaid, bears the burden of proving it under Section 84/1, and unsupported testimony is insufficient to discharge that burden.

   The defendant company asserted it had fully repaid the loan, so under Section 84/1 it bore the burden of proof. With the loan still recorded as outstanding in its own financial statements and only a single witness giving bare, uncorroborated testimony of repayment, the court found it had not discharged that burden.

2. Arrêt de la Cour suprême n° 1589/2567 (2024)

   A title deed is a document made by a competent official and is presumed under section 127 to be genuine and correct. A party who relies on it therefore has the benefit of the presumption, here that the land belonged to the registered owner under Civil and Commercial Code section 1373 read with section 1599, and it is the opposing party who bears the burden under section 84/1 of proving the facts supporting his own pleading. The presumption comes from the register and the law of succession, not from the party's physical possession of the land. A pleading that describes how the opposing party came to occupy the land, and claims ownership by adverse possession under Civil and Commercial Code section 1382, does not displace that burden, and evidence that is not weighty enough to rebut the presumption leaves the claim unproved.

   The second defendant pleaded that the disputed land had originally belonged to Mr Phinit, who sold it to the first defendant and another person without writing or registration, that they then gave it to him, and that he had possessed it peacefully and openly with owner's intent for more than ten years so as to acquire ownership by adverse possession. The Supreme Court held that this was merely a description of how he came to occupy the land, and that if the facts bore it out he might acquire ownership under Civil and Commercial Code section 1382. Because the title deed is a document made by a competent official and is presumed genuine and correct under section 127, the plaintiff had the benefit of the presumption that the land was Mr Phinit's under Civil and Commercial Code section 1373 with section 1599, so the second defendant bore the burden under section 84/1 of proving the facts supporting his own case. His evidence was not weighty enough to rebut that presumption, and the claim to ownership by adverse possession failed.

3. Arrêt de la Cour suprême n° 2008/2567 (2024)

   A party can have the benefit of a natural presumption under section 84/1 only on a factual basis it has pleaded. Where the plaint alleges negligence in failing to put out a fire, and never alleges that the fire was caused by an electrical short circuit, a court that decides the fire came from a short circuit and gives the plaintiff the benefit of the presumption decides outside the pleadings, contrary to section 142.

   The plaintiff insurer alleged that the fire in an underground car park was caused by defendant 1's negligence in failing to put it out promptly, so that it spread to the insured car. That pleading clearly set out the nature of the claim and the grounds for holding defendant 1 liable in tort under Civil and Commercial Code section 420, but it never alleged or raised as an issue that the fire arose from an electrical short circuit. The Supreme Court held that the Court of Appeal's finding that the fire came from a short circuit, and its giving the plaintiff the benefit of the presumption under section 84/1, was a decision outside the pleadings and improper under section 142.

Curated decisions with case numbers verified against the Supreme Court database. English renderings are the firm's editorial translation for study.