Re: Small Claims action: "put to strict proof"
- From: Not a lawyer <thisone@xxxxxx>
- Date: Sat, 11 Aug 2007 17:59:32 GMT
Robin T Cox wrote:
On Sat, 11 Aug 2007 16:44:57 +0000, Not a lawyer wrote:
Does anybody know what is meant by (Claimant) "is put to strict proof",
as is being demanded by the Defendant's solicitors in their defence to
I thought that in small claims cases (less than £5000), the burden of
proof is not so strict, if I understand it correctly.
Any help is appreciated.
It is for the plaintiff (i.e. the person bringing the action) to prove
their case on the balance of probabilities. This means that the judge has
to be satisfied that their version of events is more likely to be true
than that of the other party. This is a lower burden of proof than exists
in criminal law where the prosecution must establish a case beyond a
The plaintiff in a small claims case must supply enough evidence, in
documentary form or in the form of witness statements, to substantiate the
claim. As to liability, such evidence as a loan or sale agreement, and as
to amount, such evidence as a calculation or itemised account statement,
may be sufficient.
Courts always expect such information to be shared between the parties
before the action is heard.
Thanks for your reply too. I thought that would be done later, when the allocation questionnaire has to be filled in.
- Prev by Date: Re: Fire Doors
- Next by Date: Re: Fire Doors
- Previous by thread: Re: Small Claims action: "put to strict proof"