Knowledge Hub · Knowledge Hub

Burden and standard of proof

Who needs to establish what, and why most civil/ombudsman factual decisions are not judged to a criminal standard.

The burden of proof asks who must establish a point; the standard of proof asks how convincing the evidence must be.

In ordinary civil litigation the standard is generally the balance of probabilities: more likely than not. Ombudsmen and complaint schemes are not all courts, but they still weigh evidence and decide disputed facts using their own fair/reasonable processes.

In consumer complaints, you rarely improve a case by repeatedly saying “they must prove it”. Identify the disputed fact, who is asserting it and which records should objectively establish it.

Key points

  • Burden and standard are different concepts.
  • Civil “balance of probabilities” is not the criminal “beyond reasonable doubt” standard.
  • Ombudsman schemes apply their own procedural rules and may make findings from available evidence.
  • A party with control of relevant records may reasonably be asked to produce them.

Balance of probabilities

This means the decision-maker concludes a fact is more likely than not, considering the evidence as a whole. It does not mean a mathematical 51% calculation.

Evidence gaps

If an organisation asserts that a notice was sent, relevant evidence might include the notice itself, system generation record, dispatch log or account note. Absence of one record does not automatically prove non-sending, but the quality of evidence matters.

Ombudsman context

Do not assume courtroom evidence rules apply identically. Check the scheme rules and focus on reliability, relevance and fairness.

In practice

  • Ask what evidence would normally exist if the asserted event occurred.
  • Avoid absolute claims where the evidence only supports inference.
  • Use “the evidence does not establish…” when that is more accurate than “this definitely never happened”.