The following Dispute Resolution practice note provides comprehensive and up to date legal information covering:
This Practice Note considers the standard of proof in civil claims based on the defendant’s alleged fraud. It considers the test for dishonesty (per Ivey v Genting) and when dishonesty (and therefore fraud) may be inferred from the facts proved before the court.
For guidance on bringing a civil claim for fraud, see Practice Notes:
Starting a civil fraud claim—a practical guide
Civil fraud—heads of claim
Civil fraud—pleading fraud and dishonesty
Civil fraud—frequently asked questions (FAQ)
In civil proceedings, the standard of proof is ‘on the balance of probabilities’. It requires proof that the fact in issue more probably occurred than not (Re B). See also the decision of Jacobs J in Vald. Nielsen Holding v Baldorino as discussed in News Analysis: Court confirms settled principles on fraud and conspiracy claims (Vald. Nielsen Holding A/S and another company v Baldorino and others).
This contrasts with the burden and standard of proof in criminal proceedings where each element of the offence must be proven to the criminal standard—‘beyond reasonable doubt’, see Practice Note: Burden and standard of proof in criminal proceedings.
Dishonesty on the part of the party committing the civil fraud is not always a prerequisite; much will depend on the nature of the claim and the circumstances in which it arose. For further information, see Practice Note:
**Trials are provided to all LexisPSL and LexisLibrary content, excluding Practice Compliance, Practice Management and Risk and Compliance, subscription packages are tailored to your specific needs. To discuss trialling these LexisPSL services please email customer service via our online form. Free trials are only available to individuals based in the UK. We may terminate this trial at any time or decide not to give a trial, for any reason. Trial includes one question to LexisAsk during the length of the trial.
To view the latest version of this document and thousands of others like it, sign-in to LexisPSL or register for a free trial.
Existing user? Sign-in
Take a free trial
The principle of transferred maliceIf a person has a malicious intent towards X and, in carrying out that intent, injures Y, he is guilty of an offence. So, if D shoots at A with intent to kill him but kills B by mistake it is murder; the mistake as to the identity of the victim is irrelevant as D
This Practice Note covers the legal framework and regulatory guidance to be considered in determining whether an arrangement constitutes a contract of insurance and the possible consequences of carrying on activities relating to a contract of insurance without the requisite regulatory permissionsThe
Issue estoppel is a sub-species of the res judicata doctrine (see Practice Note: The doctrine of res judicata). In addition to the general key requirements for establishing a res judicata (see Practice Note: Key requirements to establish a res judicata), this Practice Note considers the specific
This Practice Note provides guidance on the interpretation and application of the relevant provisions of the CPR. Depending on the court in which your matter is proceeding, you may also need to be mindful of additional provisions—see further below.Note: this Practice Note does not deal with the
0330 161 1234
To view our latest legal guidance content,sign-in to Lexis®PSL or register for a free trial.