Civil fraud—dishonesty and standard of proof

Published by a UU��ֱ�� Dispute Resolution expert

Practice notes

Civil fraud—dishonesty and standard of proof

Published by a UU��ֱ�� Dispute Resolution expert

Practice notes

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)

Standard of proof in civil fraud cases

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

Jurisdiction(s):

United Kingdom

Key definition:

Fraud definition

What does Fraud mean?

The offence of fraud under the Fraud Act 2006, s 1, may be committed by: (a) dishonestly making a false representation (to a person, or to any system or device) with a view to gain or with intent to cause loss or expose to a risk of loss; (b) dishonestly (and with a view to gain or with intent to cause loss, etc) failing to disclose information when under a legal duty to disclose it; or (c) dishonest abuse of position, with a view to gain or to cause loss, etc. It is irrelevant whether gain, loss or exposure to loss actually occurs.

UU��ֱ��