NEWS

The Briginshaw-test

Did you know that the Briginshaw-test requires a higher standard of evidence in civil matters where serious allegations are made, such as fraud. This principle was established in the divorce case of Briginshaw v Briginshaw [1938] HCA 34.

Mr. Briginshaw filed a petition for divorce on the basis that his wife, Mrs. Briginshaw, had committed adultery. This was in the days when a party required a specific reason to apply for a divorce.  This was denied and disputed by Mrs. Briginshaw and, given the serious nature of the allegation and its severe consequences at the time, the High Court of Australia found that the standard of proof needed to be more substantial. Justice Dixon articulated that the more serious the allegations, the higher the degree of certainty was required to make a finding of that allegation, stating:

“The seriousness of an allegation made, the inherent unlikelihood of an occurrence of a given description, or the gravity of the consequences flowing from a particular finding are considerations which must affect the answer to the question whether the issue has been proved to the reasonable satisfaction of the tribunal.”

The decision did not set a new standard of proof, such as beyond reasonable doubt in criminal matters, but rather provided guidance on how such a standard ought to be reached in civil matters where there are serious allegations.

It essentially means that the more serious an allegation, the more substantial the evidence that will be required to prove the allegation. The Briginshaw-test does not require proof beyond reasonable doubt, but does require a level of evidence that is equivalent to the gravity of the allegation being made. It may be simple enough to say or believe someone had committed a fraud, but actually proving the fraud is more challenging as it requires this elevated standard.

The decision in Briginshaw v Briginshaw emphasises that in cases involving serious accusations, such as fraud or professional misconduct, the evidence presented must be clear, compelling, and convincing enough to meet the Briginshaw-test.

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specific advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

Related News

Doyles Guide Leading Class Action Lawyers, Australia 2026

William Roberts are proud to announce that  Bill Petrovski and Ding Pan have been selected as Leading Class Actions Lawyers – Australia, 2026. The 2026

Read More

Lessons from Bremner v French (No 6) [2026] NSWSC 826

Please, Your Honour, May I Have Some More (of my fees)? – Lessons from Bremner v French (No 6) [2026] NSWSC 826 Justice Parker’s decision

Read More

Zamagias v Saltalamacchia [2026] NSWCA 48: A Lesson on the Value of Contemporaneous Evidence

In a decision handed down by the New South Wales Court of Appeal on 2 April 2026, Justice Adamson with President Ward and Justice Free

Read More

Get in touch

Contact our team today

William Roberts Lawyers

Sydney

Level 22
66 Goulburn Street
SYDNEY NSW 2000

PO Box 20424, World Square NSW 2000

Melbourne

Level 7,

171 La Trobe Street
MELBOURNE VIC 3000

 

PO Box 13171, Law Courts VIC 8010

Brisbane

Level 9
193 North Quay
BRISBANE QLD 4000

 

PO Box 12170, George Street QLD 4003

Singapore

Level 19
Singapore Land Tower
50 Raffles Place
SINGAPORE 048623