Welcome to the community hub built on top of the Presumption of regularity Wikipedia article.
Here, you can discuss, collect, and organize anything related to Presumption of regularity. The
purpose of the hub is to connect people, foster deeper knowledge, and help improve
the root Wikipedia article.
The presumption of regularity[1] is a presumption that forms part of the law of evidence of England and Wales. It also plays a role in some other countries.
It is expressed by the maxim of law[2]omnia praesumuntur rite et solemniter esse acta donec probetur in contrarium,[3] (lit.'Everything is presumed right and solemn about this act until proven to the contrary'); which may be shortened to omnia praesumuntur rite et solemniter esse acta[4] (lit.'everything is presumed right and solemn about this act') or omnia praesumuntur rite esse acta (lit.'Everything is presumed right about this act').[5]
Where it has been proved that an "official act" has been done, it will be presumed, until the contrary is proved, that the said act "complied with any necessary formalities" and that the person who did it was "duly appointed".[6][7]
Where it has been proved that "necessary business transactions" have been carried out, it will be presumed, until the contrary is proved, that the said transactions were carried out in the order (if any) that they are required to be carried out.[9] See Eaglehill Ltd v J Needham (Builders) Ltd [1973] AC 992, HL.
Where it has been proved that a "mechanical device" is normally in "good working order", it will be presumed, until the contrary is proved, that it was in good working order on any relevant occasion.[10] See Tingle Jacobs & Co v Kennedy [1964] 1 WLR 638, CA
In the United States, the presumption of regularity is a principle of deference that narrows judicial scrutiny over executive decisions. It applies to "a subset of factual disputes about administrative motivations and internal processes".[11]
^For this name, see Cooper, Simon & Murphy, Peter & Beaumont, John. Cases & Materials on Evidence. Fourth Edition. Oxford University Press. 1994. p. 86
^For this version, see Simon Cooper, Peter Murphy, & John Beaumont, Cases & Materials on Evidence, 4th edn (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1994), 86.
