Arden LJ summarised the approach to be taken by a court faced with an allegation of fraud: ‘Their Lordships affirmed the decision in Re H and provided an explanation of what Lord Nicholls’ judgment meant. Baroness Hale (with whom the other Law Lords agreed) explained that nothing in Re H suggests that a different standard of proof is to be applied in circumstances where the alleged conduct is particularly serious or unusual. There is one standard of proof and that is the simple balance of probabilities. The fact that the alleged conduct is particularly serious or unusual does not displace or change this fundamental principle. Baroness Hale stated that the inherent probabilities are simply one factor to be taken into account, where relevant, in deciding where the truth lies. However generally ‘there is no logical or necessary connection between seriousness and probability’. Therefore arguments that Re H had introduced a principle that where a serious allegation is in issue the standard of proof required is higher were incorrect.’
Arden LJ, Hallett LJ, Blackburne J
 EWCA Civ 169,  1 Lloyds Rep 601
England and Wales
Appeal from – Dadourian Group International Inc and others v Simms and others ChD 25-Jul-2008
Applications arising from disclosure of documents . .
Cited – Lindsay v O’Loughnane QBD 18-Mar-2010
The claimant had purchased Euros through a foreign exchange dealer. The dealer company became insolvent, causing losses to the claimant, who sought to recover from the company’s managing director, the defendant, saying that he was aware of the . .
Cited – Michael Wilson and Partners Ltd v Sinclair and Others ComC 21-Sep-2012
The claimant company alleged that the defendants had variously received assests (shares and cash) acquired by a former partner in the claimant company and held on his behalf, in breach of his obligations to the caimant partnership. The defendants . .
Cited – Nuttal and Another v Kerr and Another QBD 25-Jul-2019
The defendant sought to appeal from a judgment given only after a long delay.
Held: Permission to appeal was necessary, and given, but the appeal itself failed: ‘(1) There is no evidence of fault of the Judge at any or any material point other . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 07 August 2022; Ref: scu.317975