Calliden Group Limited v Australian Unity Limited [2010] NSWSC 263 (13 April 2010)

http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/nsw/supreme_ct/2010/263.html

Contracts
Proper construction
Deed whereunder plaintive purchases capital in insurance companies
Dispute concerning amount of adjustment to be made to the purchase price following completion and way in which amount of adjustment was to be determined
Consideration of sundry different actuarial methods
Consideration of methods of estimating reinsurance recoveries

179 There is a plethora of authority in support of the proposition that the Court is bound to see that a case pursuing allegations of this type are clearly proved: cf Neat Holdings Pty Ltd v Karajan Holdings Pty Ltd [1992] HCA 66; (1992) 67 ALJR 170. The gravity of such allegations has been said to be such that whereas section 140(1) of the Evidence Act 1995 (NSW) stipulates a single standard of proof for all civil cases, namely the balance of probabilities, Section 140(2) preserves the doctrine in Briginshaw v Briginshaw [1938] HCA 34; (1938) 60 CLR 336 at 361-362; Pedler v Richardson (unreported, Supreme Court of NSW, 16 October 1997, Young J) at 10-11. See also McLelland CJ in Eq in Watson v Foxman (1995) 49 NSWLR 315, 319.

180 Allegations such as those here sought to be made fell far short of what is required bearing in mind the gravity of the matters alleged.