38, -, , - (appeal taken from Eng.).
(167.) See Axa General Insurance Ltd v Lord Advocate,  UKSC
46 at para 48 [Axa Insurance],
29,  (U.K.) (implying that soldiers' right to life should be recognized when the soldiers are conscripts); Plaw, supra note 5, at 12 (admitting the greater weakness of this argument in the context of conscripts); Porat, supra note 37, at 16.
(45) R (Lord Carlile of Berriew) v Secretary of State for the Home Department  UKSC
See Hirst v UK (No 2), No 74025/01,  IX ECHR 187; Greens and MTv UK, No 60041/08,  VI ECHR 57; R (Chester) v Secretary of State for Justice,  UKSC
R v Horncastle,  UKSC
14,  2 AC 373 at para 15 (this case admits hearsay where the declarant is deceased or unavailable, having fled out of fear, with judicial determination that doing so is not unfair to either party, and where the judge makes determination that the content is reliable).
Note, in respect to whether ambiguity is a prerequisite for resorting to context, the Australian approach is at odds with English and New Zealand authorities: Codelfa Construction Pty Ltd v State Rail Authority of New South Wales (1982) 149 CLR 337; Western Export Services Inc v Jireh International Pty Ltd  HCA 45; Rainy Sky SA v Kookmin Bank  UKSC
(15) Sienkiewicz v Greif,  UKSC
10,  2 WLR 523 [Sienkiewicz].
(2.) See Percy v Church of Scotland Board of National Mission,  UKHL 73 (Scot) [Percy]; The President of the Methodist Conference v Preston,  UKSC
29 [Preston UKSC].
10 (Sienkiewicz): 'It is a basic principle of the law of tort that the claimant will only have a cause of action if he can prove, on the balance of probabilities, that the defendant's tortious conduct caused the damage in respect of which compensation is claimed.'  per Lord Phillips; see also  per Lord Rodger (describing this as the 'usual' rule);  per Lord Brown and  per Lord Kerr (both describing it as the 'normal' rule).
(5) Voir Sienkiewicz v Greif,  UKSC
10,  2 AC 229.
(63.) See Al Jedda v Secretary of State,  EWCA Civ 358, aff'd  UKSC