§ SECTION 14 · BSA 2023 · CHAPTER II — RELEVANCY OF FACTS

Existence of course of business when relevant

The routine rule: when the question is whether an act was done, a settled course of business that would naturally have done it is itself a relevant fact.

How to read Section 14

One question, one routine, one inference.

What it is about

Proving that an act was done — not by an eyewitness to the act, but by the routine that would naturally have done it.

“Naturally would have been done”

The routine must be one whose ordinary run produces exactly this act — the tray that is always cleared to the post.

An inference, not a certainty

The regularity raises a presumption of fact — open to be met by proof that this time the system failed.

The bare Act

The section in its own words — colour-keyed by what each phrase does.

Section 14 · verbatim

When there is a question whether a particular act was done, the existence of any course of business, according to which it naturally would have been done, is a relevant fact.

Illustrations

(a) The question is, whether a particular letter was dispatched. The facts that it was the ordinary course of business for all letters put in a certain place to be carried to the post, and that particular letter was put in that place are relevant.

(b) The question is, whether a particular letter reached A. The facts that it was posted in due course, and was not returned through the Return Letter Office, are relevant.

In short: systems run true — and the law lets that regularity itself testify. Nobody remembers one envelope among thousands; but the tray that is always cleared, the post that always delivers, the register that is always filled, speak for the single act inside their run.

→ § 13 reasoned from a person’s repeated acts; § 14 reasons from a system’s settled routine.

Glossary

course of business

A settled, regular practice — of an office, a bank, the postal system.

naturally would have been done

The routine’s ordinary run produces exactly the act in question.

dispatch

Sending out — illustration (a)’s question.

Return Letter Office

The postal office to which undeliverable letters come back — silence from it speaks.

presumption of fact

The inference regularity raises — rebuttable by proof the chain broke this once.

The picture

The conveyor of routine — and the single act inside it.

The section, part by part

Tap a part — the picture-story tells it first; the word-by-word text and example follow.

The ruleThe Illustrations

the ruleSystems run true

In one lineWhen the question is “was the act done?”, the existence of a routine that would naturally have done it is itself relevant.

When there is a question whether a particular act was done,the questiondid this act happen at all — was the letter sent, the entry made?

the existence of any course of business,the routinea settled, regular way of doing things — an office practice, the postal system.

according to which it naturally would have been done,the natural runa routine which, in its ordinary run, would have produced this very act.

is a relevant fact.the resultthe routine itself becomes evidence that the act was done.

ExampleA company must prove it mailed a statutory notice: the dispatch clerk’s daily 5 p.m. postal run, plus the notice’s entry in the outward register — the course of business speaks, though nobody remembers that one envelope.

✗ Not thisA routine proves the ordinary run — it yields to proof that this time the chain broke (the clerk was on leave that day). It raises an inference, never a certainty.

IllustrationsThe two pictures the Act itself gives

In one lineThe office tray that always goes to the post — and the letter that was posted and never came back.

(a) the dispatchoffice routineall letters put in a certain place are carried to the post — and this letter was put there.

(b) the deliverypostal routineposted in due course, and not returned through the Return Letter Office — so it reached A.

ExampleThe two illustrations are the two halves of one journey: (a) proves the letter left the sender; (b) proves it reached the addressee — each on the strength of a system’s regularity.

Connected provisions

§ 13

The series rule

Cousins: § 13 reasons from a person’s repeated acts, § 14 from a system’s routine.

§ 7

Helper facts

Time, place and identity often complete what the routine begins.

Ch. VII

Presumptions

Chapter VII lets the court presume that the common course of business was followed — the two provisions work hand in hand.

lineage

IEA 1872, § 16

This provision carries forward section 16 of the repealed Evidence Act.