Is there a difference between the standards of proof in arbitration and in court?

Yes, there is a difference between the standards of proof in arbitration and in court. In arbitration, the standard of proof is “preponderance of the evidence”, meaning that the party making the claim has the burden to prove its case by a greater weight of evidence, but not necessarily to the same degree as in a court of law. In the court of law, the standard of proof is “beyond a reasonable doubt”. This is a much higher standard than in arbitration because it requires that the party making the claim must prove its case to the point that there can be no reasonable doubt that it is true. In securities arbitration law in Florida, all of the rules that govern proceedings are set out in the Code of Arbitration Procedure. This sets out that the burden of proof in arbitration is the “preponderance of the evidence” standard, while in court the burden of proof is the “beyond a reasonable doubt” standard. In arbitration, the party making the claim is required to present enough evidence to support its case, but not necessarily to the same degree of proof as in a court of law. However, the decision of the arbitrator must be based on a preponderance of the evidence, meaning that the arbitrator must consider all the evidence presented and decide which side is more likely to be correct. Therefore, there is a clear difference between the standards of proof in arbitration and in court. The standard of proof in arbitration is “preponderance of the evidence”, while the standard of proof in court is “beyond a reasonable doubt”.

Related FAQs

Is there a difference between the standards of proof in arbitration and in court?

Related FAQs

Related Blog Posts