Thus for the throw of a dice we would say that the outcome, X, has six
versions, X1, X2, X3, X4, X5 and X6. Each of these versions of X represents
the ways of throwing the dice so that the corresponding number comes up.
Thus X3 represents ways of throwing the dice which cause the number “3” to
come up. Our knowledge of X is that, on an ordinary throw of the dice, each
version of X is equally probable. Thus there is a one in six chance that the dice
will be thrown to cause the number “3” to come up.
Putting this in plain language, in these situations classical probability is our best
guess. If we resort to the method of classical probability we will be right more
often than if we deploy any other means.
On a few occasions courts have used classical probability to help them find
the facts of the case. On occasions courts have rejected classical probability.
Illustration 1: The Brimnes Case
In Tenax Steamship Co v The Brimnes there were two relevant events, giving
notice and payment of money, and the issue was which had occurred first.
153
Notice was given in a 30 minute period between 17.30 and 18.00 hours and
payment was made in a 60 minute period between 17.37 and 18.37 hours.
There was no direct evidence as to when either event happened within the
possible periods. There was also no indirect evidence suggesting that any one
particular time was more likely than any other. In the relevant periods
according to Lord Justice Cairns there was “no preference for any particular
moment”.
154
Given this the court relied upon classical probability. It assumed that the two
events, giving notice and payment of money, were equally likely to have
happened at any time within the relevant periods. (This is the challengeable
assumption that may cast doubts on the propriety of resorting to classical
probability).
To commence, we can set out the details of the time periods for notice and
payment in the following table:
Period 1
Period 2
Period 3
17.30-17.37
17.37-18.00
18.00-18.37
Notice
Notice
Notice
-
___________________
153
Tenax v Steamship Co v The Brimnes
[1974] Int Com LR 05/23,
[1975] QB 929
154
Tenax v Steamship Co v The Brimnes
[1974] Int Com LR 05/23 par [116] per
Lord Justice Cairns
 |
 |
 |