| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| penalties |
proof |
|
|
Summary:
Contrary to what the Chief Umpire said (that the proof required is higher than a mere balance of probabilities), the applicable standard of proof in a matter of this kind is the ordinary standard of proof on a balance of probabilities. The Board did not commit any error of law.
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| umpires |
grounds of appeal |
natural justice and error in law or in fact |
|
Summary:
It could not be said that the Board of Referees had committed any error of law in rendering their decision. It followed that the Chief Umpire could not, without exceeding his jurisdiction, set aside its decision.
