§ SECTION 46 · BSA 2023 · CHAPTER II — RELEVANCY OF FACTS

In civil cases, character to prove conduct imputed is irrelevant

The character run opens: a civil case is decided on its facts, not on whether a party is a “good” or “bad” person. So character — used to argue the alleged conduct likely or unlikely — is irrelevant, except where it appears from otherwise-relevant facts.

How to read Section 46

Facts decide civil cases — not reputation.

The bar

In civil cases, using character to argue conduct is probable or improbable is irrelevant.

The exception

Unless the character appears from facts otherwise relevant.

Contrast

Criminal cases treat character differently — good character is relevant (next).

The bare Act

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

Section 46 · verbatim

In civil cases the fact that the character of any person concerned is such as to render probable or improbable any conduct imputed to him, is irrelevant, except in so far as such character appears from facts otherwise relevant.

In short: a civil court asks what happened, not what sort of person the party is. You may not lead evidence that someone is of good or bad character to make the alleged act seem likely or unlikely. The only slack: if character happens to show up in a fact that is relevant for another reason, that fact is not thrown out.

→ This carries forward IEA 1872 § 52 — opening the run on character (§§ 46–50).

Glossary

civil cases

Non-criminal proceedings — suits about contracts, property, torts, etc.

character

A person’s reputation and disposition — being honest, violent, careful, and so on.

conduct imputed

The act alleged against the person in the case.

render probable or improbable

To make the alleged conduct seem more or less likely — the forbidden use of character here.

irrelevant

Not admissible — the default for character in civil cases.

appears from facts otherwise relevant

The exception — a relevant fact is not excluded just because it also reveals character.

The picture

Civil cases: not who you are, but what you did.

The section, part by part

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

The ruleThe exception

the ruleReputation is not proof — in civil cases

In one lineIn civil cases, a person’s character — used to argue the alleged conduct is likely or unlikely — is irrelevant, except so far as it appears from facts otherwise relevant.

In civil cases the fact that the character of any person concerned is such as to render probable or improbable any conduct imputed to him,the trigger · character → conductin a civil case, using a person’s character to make the alleged conduct seem likely or unlikely…

is irrelevant,⚠ IRRELEVANT…is, as a rule, irrelevant — the case turns on the facts, not the person’s reputation…

except in so far as such character appears from facts otherwise relevant.the exception · if it shows from relevant facts…except where that character emerges from facts that are relevant anyway.

ExampleIn a contract suit, that the defendant is “a dishonest man” is irrelevant to whether he broke this contract — you must prove the breach, not his bad character. But if his dishonesty shows from a relevant fact (a prior dealing that is itself relevant), that is not excluded.

✗ Not thisThis is civil cases. In criminal cases the accused’s good character is relevant (that comes next). And the bar is on using character as such to argue probability — character that arises from otherwise-relevant facts still comes in.

the exceptionWhen character still slips in

In one lineCharacter is generally irrelevant in civil cases — unless it shows from facts relevant anyway; and criminal cases treat character the opposite way.

character to render conduct probable/improbable — is irrelevantthe baryou cannot use “good/bad character” as such to argue the party did or did not do it.

except in so far as it appears from facts otherwise relevantthe carve-outif the character emerges from a relevant fact, it is not shut out — you simply do not exclude that fact.

contrast: criminal casescivil ≠ criminalin a criminal trial the accused’s good character is relevant — the opposite rule (next).

ExampleA sues B for defaming him. That B is generally a quarrelsome person is irrelevant. But if B’s own relevant letter in the case reveals his hostility, that letter (and the character it shows) is not excluded — it came in on its own relevance.

✗ Not thisThe exception is not a backdoor for character evidence — you do not lead character; you simply do not strike out a relevant fact merely because it happens to reveal character.

Connected provisions

§ 45

Grounds of opinion

The opinions run just closed; § 46 opens the character run (§§ 46–50).

§ 47 · next

Good character in criminal cases

Next: character as it bears on the amount of damages in civil cases.

criminal

Good character is relevant

In criminal cases the accused’s good character is relevant — the mirror of this civil rule.

lineage

IEA 1872, § 52

Carried forward — character to prove conduct is irrelevant in civil cases.