Vora Snehlata Jayantilal 2017737 19-02-2013.pdf - General ...

5"In some contexts a Court or Tribunal has to look at the facts more critically ormore anxiously than in others before it can be satisfied to the requisite standard.The standard itself is, however, finite and unvarying. Situationswhich might make heightened examination necessary may be the inherentunlikelihood of the occurrence taking place (Lord Hoffman's example of the animalseen in Regents Park) the seriousness of the allegation to be proved or, in somecases, the consequences which could follow from acceptance ofproof of the relevant fact. The seriousness of the allegation requires no elaboration:A Tribunal of fact will look closely into the facts grounding an allegation of fraudbefore accepting that it has been established. The seriousness of consequences isanother facet of the same proposition: If it is alleged that a bank manager hascommitted a minor peculation, that could entail very serious consequences for hiscareer, so making it the less likely that he would risk doing such a thing. These areall matters of ordinaryexperience, requiring the application of good sense on thepart of those who have to decide such issues. They do not require a differentstandard of proof or a specially cogent standard of evidence, merely appropriatelycareful consideration by the Tribunal before it is satisfied of the matter which has tobe established."We apply these principles in this case.It is convenient to start with the background facts. Most of these appear to be commonground, or least not the subject of active challenge but, for the avoidance of doubt, weshould say that we find the following basic facts.At the time of the events in question, Mrs R was a long standing user of the Registrant'spharmacy. Indeed, her parents has used the pharmacy for many years, as did she after hermarriagewhen she needed to obtain medication prescribed for herself, her husband and herchildren. She used the pharmacy on a regular basis because she needed to use inhalers.She said (and we accept) that she saw herself as a loyal customer. Prior to the events inissue, she had had no cause for complaint about the services provided by Miss Vora. Therewas no background history, hostility or animosity between Mrs R and Miss Vora.It is common ground that, on 13 July 2011, Mrs R attended the pharmacy with NHSprescriptions for both herself and her husband. The items as prescribed by a doctor weredispensed by Miss Vora, and NHS prescription charges were paid by Mrs R as evidencedby the till receipt issued at 16.18 hours in the sum of £37.60. The medication prescribedand dispensed for Mrs R herself included two inhalers containing Ventolin, which arecoloured blue, and two inhalers containing Clenil Modulite, which are coloured brown.On Mrs R's evidence, just after the items had been dispensed and put into the bag and paidfor, a dispute arose. On Miss Vora's evidence the dispute arose before the items wereplaced in the bag. The dispute concerned a basket of cosmetic compacts containingpressed face powder which was situated on the customer side of the counter, and this fell tothe floor. Miss Vora's perception was that this was Mrs R's fault, and was caused by heradjusting her scarf or pashmina. It is at least common ground that some damage was