Login or register (free and only takes a few minutes) to participate in this question.
You will also have access to many other tools and opportunities designed for those who have language-related jobs (or are passionate about them). Participation is free and the site has a strict confidentiality policy.
The assertion that the defendant insurers can discharge the burden of proof in a scuttling case only by adducing evidence which is strong in the sense that it strongly connotes complicity and the requirement derived from the authorities in this field that, as I have already indicated, the Court must at least conclude on the whole of the evidence that it is highly improbable that the loss was caused without such complicity will, in my judgment, amount in both cases to the necessity that there be derived from the evidence of complicity a high level of confidence that the allegation is true. I therefore approach the evidence in this case on the basis that it must be strong and in particular of sufficient strength to induce a high level of confidence that the allegation of scuttling is true.