Standard of Proof. Should the Note Trustee take legal or other proceedings against the Issuer to enforce any of the provisions of the Notes, or any of them or this Deed proof therein that, as regards any Note, the Issuer has made default in paying any principal or interest due in respect of such Note shall (unless the contrary be proved) be sufficient evidence that the Issuer has made the like default as regards all other Notes in respect of which the relevant payment is then due and payable. The Note Trustee may file such proofs of claim and other papers or documents as may be necessary or advisable in order to have the claims of the Note Trustee and the Noteholders allowed in any judicial proceedings relating to the Issuer, its auditors or its property.
Standard of Proof. A) Allegations of breaches of these Halls of Residence Discipline Regulations need not be proved ‘beyond a reasonable doubt’. The standard of proof applied is the ‘balance of probabilities’ which means that, when assessing the evidence objectively, the Decision-Makers view is that it is more likely than not that the allegation of misconduct is proved;
Standard of Proof. An institutional or HHS finding of research misconduct must be proved by a preponderance of the evidence.
Standard of Proof. In making a determination with respect to entitlement to indemnification hereunder, the person or persons or entity making such determination shall presume that Indemnitee has acted in Good Faith. The Company shall indemnify Indemnitee unless, and only to the extent that, the Company shall prove by clear and convincing evidence to the person or persons or entity making such determination that Indemnitee has not acted in Good Faith.
Standard of Proof. The Clearing House will not find an allegation proven unless the Clearing House is satisfied that the allegation is proven on the balance of probabilities.
Standard of Proof. 37 Apart from the issue of incorporation, there is a question regarding the applicable standard of proof to be applied in assessing fraud. On this note, there is force in the argument that the appropriate standard of proof to be applied is one of a strong prima facie case of fraudulent or unconscionable conduct; as can be derived from BS Mount Sophia at [20]–[21]; JBE at [9]. The entire context of the case has to be considered thoroughly and an injunction granted only if the entire context was particularly malodorous: BS Mount Sophia at [21]. 38 Having said that, there is to my mind not a significant difference, if any, between the phrases “clear case” of fraud and a “strong prima facie case”. While the Court of Appeal in JBE noted some doubts as to the use of the language “clear case of fraud”, such concern was directed at explaining the distinction between fraud and unconscionability that is now the law in Singapore: at [10]–[13]. In the final analysis, the court has to be satisfied that the evidence shows the possible existence of fraud; though fraud need not be probable, conclusive or determinative. I thus used the term “clear case’” in my oral remarks accompanying my decision, but for the avoidance of doubt, I was satisfied that there was no strong prima facie case (or even a prima facie case) of fraud on the present facts. Whether fraud was established 39 To put matters in perspective, the present case is one where both sides assert that they are owed a certain sum by the other. Hence, the crux of the dispute is whether, having taken into account the sums due to each side, there remains a foundation for the 1st defendant to call on the guarantee. As a result, much of the contentions focused on showing that the conduct of the respective parties in either claiming payment, or reducing or withholding payment, was justified. According to the plaintiff’s primary position, the 1st defendant could not have justifiably called on the guarantee as its claims against the plaintiff were contrived. The conduct of the 1st defendant was therefore fraudulent as the 1st defendant was effectively representing to the 2nd defendant, the bank, that its call on the guarantee was valid when it knew that there was no foundation to the call. 40 The circumstances and threshold to be met before fraud is invoked is exemplified and elaborated in a number of cases and commentaries:
Standard of Proof. Should the Security Trustee take legal or other proceedings against the Loan Note Issuer to enforce any of the provisions of the Loan Notes, or any of them, or any of the provisions of this Deed and any relevant Loan Note Supplement, proof therein that, as regards any Loan Note of any Series, the Loan Note Issuer has made default in paying any principal or interest due in respect of such Loan Note shall (unless the contrary be proved) be sufficient evidence that the Loan Note Issuer has made the like default as regards all other Loan Notes of the same Class within such Series in respect of which the relevant payment is then due and payable. The Security Trustee may file such proofs of claim and other papers or documents as may be necessary or advisable in order to have the claims of the Security Trustee, the Loan Note Holders and the other Secured Creditors allowed in any judicial proceedings relating to the Loan Note Issuer or its property.
Standard of Proof. Pursuant to Section 13.1 of the Sanctions Procedures, the preponderance of the evidence is determined by whether upon consideration of relevant facts and materials before the body considering such facts and materials, that it is more likely than not that the Respondent has engaged in a Sanctionable Practice.
Standard of Proof. 8.1. The standard of proof in all cases brought pursuant to this Appendix is comfortable satisfaction.
Standard of Proof. To reach a decision in favour of the Bayer Partner, the binding advisors must find, after giving reasonable latitude to the Operator's judgement in applying the Policies and the Lyondell Operating Practices, that the Operator's proposed course of action and/or expenditure, as applicable, is inconsistent with the Policies and the Lyondell Operating Practices in a significant respect. The binding advisors are not authorised to make any other decision or award except as provided in Section C.7 and Section C.8 below.
