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 West Virginia regarding securities arbitration law. In court, the civil burden of proof is used and requires the plaintiff to prove their case by a preponderance of the evidence. This means that the plaintiff must prove that it is more likely than not that what they are asserting is true. In a civil trial, the plaintiff must also show that the defendant was negligent or acted wrongfully in an intentional way. In arbitration, the burden of proof is lower than in court and is less stringent. This is because arbitration is a process that is meant to be less formal and often quicker than a court trial. In arbitration, the burden of proof typically requires only that the party demonstrate that the evidence presented is more credible than any evidence presented by the opposing side. In this way, the plaintiff does not need to prove their case beyond a reasonable doubt, as they would in a court of law. Ultimately, the difference in the standards of proof between arbitration and court in West Virginia largely revolves around the lower burden of proof in arbitration and the more relaxed atmosphere of arbitration proceedings in comparison to a civil trial. This difference allows for arbitration to be a faster and more cost-effective process in resolving disputes between parties than a court trial.

Related FAQs

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

Related FAQs

Related Blog Posts