Small Claims action: "put to strict proof"

[Not a lawyer]

Hi

Does anybody know what is meant by (Claimant) "is put to strict proof",
as is being demanded by the Defendant's solicitors in their defence to
the court.

I thought that in small claims cases (less than £5000), the burden of
proof is not so strict, if I understand it correctly.

Any help is appreciated.

[Chuckles The Scary Clown]

Hi
Does anybody know what is meant by (Claimant) "is put to strict proof", as
is being demanded by the Defendant's solicitors in their defence to the
court.
I thought that in small claims cases (less than £5000), the burden of
proof is not so strict, if I understand it correctly.
Any help is appreciated.

Let me guess...........you're trying to claim back bank charges?

[Not a lawyer]

Post by Chuckles The Scary Clown

Hi
Does anybody know what is meant by (Claimant) "is put to strict proof", as
is being demanded by the Defendant's solicitors in their defence to the
court.
I thought that in small claims cases (less than £5000), the burden of
proof is not so strict, if I understand it correctly.
Any help is appreciated.

Let me guess...........you're trying to claim back bank charges?

Nope.

[Janitor of Lunacy]

Hi
Does anybody know what is meant by (Claimant) "is put to strict proof", as
is being demanded by the Defendant's solicitors in their defence to the
court.
I thought that in small claims cases (less than £5000), the burden of
proof is not so strict, if I understand it correctly.
Any help is appreciated.

It's a form of words in common use. All it means is that you are required,
by producing admissible evidence, to prove your claim. If you can do
this, for example by producing bank statements showing charges, that
will be enough.

It's a civil case, and the burden of proof is on a balance of probabilities,
not beyond reasonable doubt, as it would be in a criminal case.

HTH.

[Not a lawyer]

Post by Janitor of Lunacy

Hi
Does anybody know what is meant by (Claimant) "is put to strict proof", as
is being demanded by the Defendant's solicitors in their defence to the
court.
I thought that in small claims cases (less than £5000), the burden of
proof is not so strict, if I understand it correctly.
Any help is appreciated.

It's a form of words in common use. All it means is that you are required,
by producing admissible evidence, to prove your claim. If you can do
this, for example by producing bank statements showing charges, that
will be enough.
It's a civil case, and the burden of proof is on a balance of probabilities,
not beyond reasonable doubt, as it would be in a criminal case.
HTH.

Yes it does, thanks. As a layman, I thought the term meant closer to
criminal proof.

[Robin T Cox]

Post by Not a lawyer
Hi
Does anybody know what is meant by (Claimant) "is put to strict proof",
as is being demanded by the Defendant's solicitors in their defence to
the court.
I thought that in small claims cases (less than £5000), the burden of
proof is not so strict, if I understand it correctly.
Any help is appreciated.

It is for the plaintiff (i.e. the person bringing the action) to prove
their case on the balance of probabilities. This means that the judge has
to be satisfied that their version of events is more likely to be true
than that of the other party. This is a lower burden of proof than exists
in criminal law where the prosecution must establish a case beyond a
reasonable doubt.

The plaintiff in a small claims case must supply enough evidence, in
documentary form or in the form of witness statements, to substantiate the
claim. As to liability, such evidence as a loan or sale agreement, and as
to amount, such evidence as a calculation or itemised account statement,
may be sufficient.

Courts always expect such information to be shared between the parties
before the action is heard.

[Not a lawyer]

Post by Robin T Cox

Post by Not a lawyer
Hi
Does anybody know what is meant by (Claimant) "is put to strict proof",
as is being demanded by the Defendant's solicitors in their defence to
the court.
I thought that in small claims cases (less than £5000), the burden of
proof is not so strict, if I understand it correctly.
Any help is appreciated.

It is for the plaintiff (i.e. the person bringing the action) to prove
their case on the balance of probabilities. This means that the judge has
to be satisfied that their version of events is more likely to be true
than that of the other party. This is a lower burden of proof than exists
in criminal law where the prosecution must establish a case beyond a
reasonable doubt.
The plaintiff in a small claims case must supply enough evidence, in
documentary form or in the form of witness statements, to substantiate the
claim. As to liability, such evidence as a loan or sale agreement, and as
to amount, such evidence as a calculation or itemised account statement,
may be sufficient.
Courts always expect such information to be shared between the parties
before the action is heard.

Thanks for your reply too. I thought that would be done later, when the
allocation questionnaire has to be filled in.