The trial judge had said that the petitioner, who alleged cruelty by her husband, must prove her case beyond reasonable doubt.
Held: There had been no misdirection. Each member of the court had found difficulty in distinguishing between the two standards.
Denning LJ spoke of the levels of proof needed: ‘The difference of opinion which has been evoked about the standard of proof in recent cases may well turn out to be more a matter of words than anything else. It is of course true that by our law a higher standard of proof is required in criminal cases than in civil cases. But this is subject to the qualification that there is no absolute standard in either case.’ and
‘So also in civil cases, the case may be proved by a preponderance of probability, but there may be degrees of probability within that standard. The degree depends on the subject matter. A civil court, when considering a charge of fraud, will naturally require a higher degree of probability than that which it would require if considering whether negligence were established. It does not adopt so high a degree as a criminal court, even when it is considering a charge of a criminal nature, but still it does require a degree of probability which is commensurate with the occasion.’
Bucknill LJ asked; ‘If a court has to be satisfied, how can it at the same time entertain a reasonable doubt.’
Judges:
Denning LJ, Bucknill, Somervell LJJ
Citations:
[1950] 2 All ER 458
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Cited by:
Cited – Hornal v Neuberger Products Ltd CA 1956
Proof Standard for Misrepresentation
The court was asked what was the standard of proof required to establish the tort of misrepresentation, and it contrasted the different standards of proof applicable in civil and criminal cases.
Held: The standard was the balance of . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Litigation Practice, Family
Updated: 02 May 2022; Ref: scu.415914