The Student Room Group
Uni students - Complete our survey >>
Uni students - Complete our survey >>
Uni students - Complete our survey >>

Explaining onus is on person rebutting prima facie rule

Hi,

I'm having a bit of trouble with a section of my coursework.

Basically I have to explain a statement. It relates to the prima facie rule that anything not attached to the land is a chattel.

I need to explain that the onus is on the person contending the chattel is actually a fixture. I.e. The person who is arguing a statue resting on its own weight is a fixture has the burden of proof.

The only things I can think of is that the claimant has the burden of proof in civil matters. And the claimant is going to be the one going against the rule.

And secondly, that they're arguing against a prima facie rule. It's rebuttable but it obviously needs proving.

Any help anyone could give would be amazing, thanks :smile:
You might find that a useful phrase for you is 'legal presumption'. Rather than talking about the 'prima facie rule', state that it is a legal presumption that anything not attached to land is a chattel. Therefore before either side has produced any evidence on the point, the court will assume that the item not attached to land is a chattel. If a party wishes to suggest that it is not a chattel, that party must rebut that presumption.
Reply 2
Avatar for sph93
sph93
OP
8
Original post by Crazy Jamie
You might find that a useful phrase for you is 'legal presumption'. Rather than talking about the 'prima facie rule', state that it is a legal presumption that anything not attached to land is a chattel. Therefore before either side has produced any evidence on the point, the court will assume that the item not attached to land is a chattel. If a party wishes to suggest that it is not a chattel, that party must rebut that presumption.


Yeah I've said what the legal presumption is. Explained it is rebuttable. Then said basically if you're going against a legal presumption then obviously the onus is on you to prove your point because the law is already on the other parties side. More eloquently of course haha.

But I've got 6 parts to my coursework, 2 of them are on this. Don't know what else I can say and feel like I'm missing something important.

Thanks for your help

Quick Reply

Related discussions

Latest

Trending

Trending

Articles for you