Not really.... but you non holders & cronies are delusional ! Your elevated anxiety is now evident
And it appears that Chillie has distorted minds here..
A holistic approach should be taken to what has to be proven on the balance of probabilities. A court should not simply weigh up the case of party A against the case of party B and come to a determination based on which is more plausible.
Sufficient evidence must be provided to affirm the arguments made out to the court. The court must be satisfied on the balance of probabilities that one case is more plausible than the other and that the case is backed up by the evidence that is before the court.
Where there is a sufficient argument and sufficient evidence, there is a greater likelihood that the standard of proof will be met. In conclusion, the civil standard of proof of balance of probabilities can be interpreted differently by different decision-makers in different forums.
In its simplest form, where the decision-maker deems that one version of events is 51% more likely than the other version, then the requisite standard of proof of balance of probabilities is met. While the balance of probabilities is a notion that is simple to understand at face value, it can be difficult to establish whether the threshold has been met in a given situation.
Again I say ASIC has Nil Hard/Soft Evidence ....ZERO..
