Evidential burden of proof meaning

Commission v Intel Corporation Case C-240/22 P What are the practical implications of this case? The ruling chiefly clarifies the function of the AEC test and identifies where the evidential burden under Article 102 TFEU sits, while also bearing on the EU’s position in its latest draft Guidelines. It further delineates the scope of review the General Court must undertake. The draft Guidelines sought to increase legal certainty in enforcing exclusionary abuses under Article 102 TFEU, regarded as crucial to competition operating effectively. They introduce a soft presumption that rebate schemes can yield exclusionary outcomes, thereby placing the onus on a dominant undertaking to disprove it. More broadly, the Guidelines point to a move away from the AEC test towards an appraisal of the potential effects of the exclusionary practice on all market players. Nonetheless, the General Court’s 2022 judgment, upheld by the Court of Justice, confirms that the burden of proof continues to rest with the Commission...

In this issue: Key developments UK immigration control: how it works Family routes Long residence, discretion and human rights International Daily and weekly news alerts New and updated content Key developments Future developments—Immigration calendar Our Immigration calendar outlines key forthcoming developments relevant to business immigration advisers. UK immigration control: how it works Digitisation implementation measures will include less NTL evidence On 1 October 2024, the Minister for Migration and Citizenship, Seema Malhotra MP, answered a joint letter from organisations including the Immigration Law Practitioners’ Association (ILPA), titled ‘Grave Concerns Regarding Digital-only Immigration Status’. Her reply seeks to address major worries about replacing physical immigration documents with digital-only proof of status, and lists measures being introduced, including lowering the evidential burden for No Time Limit (NTL) applications. The ILPA letter had labelled the digital-only policy ‘inherently poor’, highlighting multiple risks linked to the shift. These cover the ineffectiveness of the digital system, challenges for...

Re Wotherspoon (in bankruptcy); Hinton (as trustee in bankruptcy of John Wotherspoon) v Gillian Wotherspoon [2022] EWHC 2083 (Ch), [2022] All ER (D) 67 (Aug) What are the practical implications of this case? It is axiomatic that, in nearly every claim, the claimant or applicant bears the burden of proof. That principle equally applies to office-holders pursuing antecedent transaction claims. Pre-bankruptcy dealings between a would-be bankrupt and a spouse or close associate may tempt an office-holder to infer an improper motive and press a claim. This decision squarely reminds insolvency practitioners and lawyers that, even if the recipient’s or bankrupt’s account seems doubtful, there must still be contemporaneous material from which the case can be proved. That is especially significant under IA 1986, s 423, where an improper purpose must be demonstrated and not merely presumed in light of the consequence of the transaction. Further, the case underlines the added challenge of proving an improper purpose where: the transaction occurred a long time before the bankruptcy,...

This Practice Note examines: the evidential standard for a deceit claim how to plead a deceit claim, including the questions to put to the claimant when contemplating bringing such a claim pleading joint liability for deceit the distinction between a claim in deceit and one for misrepresentation, and why you might opt for one cause of action rather than the other whether you can plead the costs of an earlier failed action as damages for deceit the use of deceit claims within civil fraud proceedings For guidance on the elements needed to establish a claim in deceit, see Practice Note: The tort of deceit—required elements. Deceit claim—standard of proof required The claimant bears the burden of proof in deceit. The applicable standard is the civil one, namely the balance of probabilities—so the court will find an event occurred if, on the evidence, it judges that its occurrence was more likely than not. Put simply, the judge determines...

Balance of probabilities The claimant is required to establish, on the balance of probabilities, that the defendant was negligent or failed to comply with their statutory duties. Succeeding on the balance of probabilities means demonstrating that something is more likely than not. If the claimant’s material is as consistent with negligence as with its absence, or with breach of duty as with none, the claim will not succeed. Where the defendant has been convicted of an offence arising from the alleged negligent conduct, a rebuttable presumption arises that the offence was committed. In such a situation, the burden of proof is reversed. It then falls to the defendant to demonstrate, on the balance of probabilities, that there was no negligence...

This Practice Note considers the requirement for a ‘good arguable case’ which must be met to establish that the English courts have jurisdiction to determine a dispute. To satisfy the good arguable case threshold, a claimant must show that the claim falls within at least one of the jurisdictional gateways in CPR PD 6B, para 3.1. This threshold is engaged only where permission to serve proceedings out of the jurisdiction is sought (or has been granted and the defendant then contests the court’s jurisdiction). It does not apply where permission is unnecessary, for instance under CPR 6.32 and CPR 6.33, or via the parallel service route in the Companies Act 2006, as confirmed in Titan Wealth Services Ltd v Tavistock Investments PLC (2025). Although aspects of that decision were successfully appealed, the jurisdiction findings were left undisturbed. For a summary of the overarching principles governing the gateways, see Practice Note: Cross-border service—jurisdictional gateways (principles), which also directs readers to more detailed materials on particular gateways. the...