Thanks for the link, I hadn’t seen that before. Will have a proper read at home and digest fully.
In essence, what I meant was the threshold in a civil court for fraud is higher than bop. My understanding is that is more aligned with a criminal standard for fraud to be proven. I work in insurance and this will have come from a textbook when studying for my diploma (still partway through). Text book will namely be the M05 (insurance law) or M85 (claims practice). Might dig my text books out and check (will be after Christmas though :-) ) I certainly wouldn’t have just made it up unless I’ve interpreted or read it wrong.
By cogent evidence, are you suggesting that for fraud to be proven in a civil court, it’s not quite Bop because a higher standard of evidence is required? Just curious because if it’s not
Thanks for the link, hadn’t seen previously, it’s very clear and concise.
My understanding will have come from my insurance diploma study books, namely the MO5 ( Insurance Law and Contract Law) or M85 (Claims). Are you saying by ‘cogent evidence’, establishing fraud in a civil court is likely to be higher than for other types of civil action but not as high as that relating to criminal matters?