How have courts interpreted the presumption of intention in a case?

Lord Denning in Hosegood v. Hosegood (1950), 66 T.L.R. (Pt. 1) 735 at 738, in a civil case, put it this way: “When people say that a man must be taken to intend the natural consequences of his acts, they fall into error: there is no ‘must’ about it; it is only ‘may’. The presumption of intention is not a proposition of law but a proposition of ordinary good sense. It means this: that, as a man is usually able to foresee what are the natural consequences of his acts, so it is, as a rule, reasonable to infer that he did foresee them and intend them. But, while that is an inference which may be drawn, it is not one which must be drawn. If on all the facts of the case it is not the correct inference, then it should not be drawn.”