The Gazette 1973

(even beyond a reasonable doubt, had this been neces- sary) that the fire was deliberately caused by some per- son or persons who planted on the premises an incen- diary device which was intended to, and did, cause the fire which destroyed the premises. He added he was satisfied that the remains of an incendiary device found in the premises some seven months after the fire, had survived the fire, and he rejected the Corporation's suggestion that it had been planted after the fire. There had also been evidence that several other fires had occurred around the same time in other premises in Dublin in circumstances which tended to suggest they were started deliberately. These had been at Easons, Clerys, Arnotts and Roche's Stores. There was, there- fore, some evidence, at this particular period, that there was an outbreak of incendiarism in the city. This, in his opinion, strengthened the company's case.

against an award of £302,433 to Cavendish Woodhouse (Holdings) Ltd., under the Criminal Injuries Acts. The award was made in respect of the destruction by fire of the company's premises at Grafton Street, Dublin, on the night of March 1st and 2nd, 1971. The amount of compensation was not in dispute and the only ques- tion arising on the appeal was as to whether the com- pany had discharged the onus which was on them, of proving that the fire, which completely destroyed their premises, was caused maliciously. Mr. Justice Pringle, in his judgment, said that the nature of the proof of malice in order to discharge the onus was a matter of dispute between the parties, the company contending that the onus of proof was that required in civil proceedings (on the balance of proba- bilities), whereas the respondents contended that the proof was that required in criminal proceedings (beyond a reasonable doubt). Mr. Justice Pringle said he was quite satisfied that the company's contention was correct and that proof beyond a reasonable doubt was not required. The evidence produced as to the origin of the fire, said Mr. Justice Pringle, had completely satisfied him

The decision of the Circuit Court Judge was, in his opinion, correct and the award made by him must be affirmed, and the appeal dismissed with costs. [re Cavendish Woodhouse (Holdings) Ltd.; The Irish Times, 2nd October 1973.] £1,000 Bereavement damages urged for husbands and wives -Law Commission Report

be laid down and revised periodically by Parliament. While rejecting proposals that damages should be awarded in the form of periodic payments instead of in a lump sum, as at present, it accepts that courts should be able to make a provisional award to an injured per- son while authorising him to return to court later for more money if more serious consequences of his injury materialise. The commission did not have within its terms of reference the question whether the present system for awarding damages which is based on proof of fault should be replaced by a system of strict liability or automatic cover by insurance. This is now being considered by a Royal Commission. The five Law Commissioners, headed by Mr. Justice Cooke, say the aim of their report is to ensure that compensation for pecuniary loss such as expenses and loss of earnings is full and that compensation for non- pecuniary loss such as pain and suffering and loss of faculties or á limb is seen by the public as being just. Strong case for damages for bereavement The commission thought there was a strong case for allowing recovery of damages for the bereavement caused by the death of a close relative. It could have "some slight consoling effect" where parents lose an infant child or where a spouse loses husband or wife. It proposes a fixed tariff figure because it was anxious that there should be no judicial inquiry into the conse- quences of bereavement but it recognises that the effects of bereavement could be greater in some cases than in others. The Daily Telegraph (26 July 1973) 212

Damages of £1,000 for personal bereavement should be payable to a husband or wife who lost their spouse in an accident or to parents who have lost a child, says the Law Commission in a report yesterday. It is one of several proposals made to Lord Hailsham, the Lord Chancellor, for improving the rules for assess- ing and awarding damages in actions for personal injury or death. The committee proposes that damages now awarded for loss of expectation of life should be abolished but instead the injured person would be compensated for the loss of income during his lost years, less any sum he would have spent maintaining himself. In awarding damages for pain and suffering, courts would take into account the suffering likely to be caused to a person by the knowledge that his life has been shortened. Actuarial tables proposed Another proposal is that parties to an action would be entitled to rely on evidence from actuaries in assessing future pecuniary loss in such cases as a widow who has lost the support of her husband or a man disabled by his injuries. The commission suggests that the Lord Chancellor, with advice from an expert committee, could approve actuarial tables for use in court which would, if possible, take account of inflation. Periodic parliamentary payments rejected It supports the present system under which it is left to the judges to set the level of damages and rejects the idea that a legislative tariff to guide the courts should