Case No. ZC14D01201

3.The burden of proof is on he or she who seeks to assert disputed facts, in this case, the Applicant, Meera Thakkar. The standard of proof is the civil standard, namely the balance of probabilities. The seriousness of the allegation makes no difference to the standard of proof to be applied in determining the truth of the allegation. The inherent probabilities are simply something to be taken into account, where relevant, in deciding where the truth lies.4.There are issues in the case as to whether or not various parties and witnesses have lied either to this court or previously in relation to the beneficial ownership of the Group. First, I must decide whether or not anyone did deliberately tell lies. If I find that they did, I have to ask myself why they lied. The mere fact that a witness tells a lie is not in itself evidence as to the ownership of the Group. A witness may lie for many reasons. They may possibly be “innocent” ones in the sense that they have nothing to do with the ownership of the Group. For example, they may be lies to bolster a true case; or to protect someone else; or to conceal some other disreputable conduct unrelated to the issues I have to decide; or out of panic, distress or confusion. 5.It follows that, if I find that a witness has lied, I must assess whether or not there is an “innocent” explanation for those lies that is not relevant to the ownership of the Group. However, if I am satisfied that there is no such explanation, I can take the lies into account in my assessment.6.The Third Respondent, Sarla has not filed evidence and has not attended court. Mr Pointer QC and Mr Webster who appear for the Applicant, Meera invite me to draw an adverse inference from this failure. They rely on the case of