Balance of Probabilities在法律中称为“可能性较高者”，也翻译为“盖然性；盖然性权衡；或然性权衡”。

Balance of Probabilities是民事案件中举证的标准，法庭对原告和被告所提出的证据，认为那一方的可信性较高，便会判处该方胜诉。相对刑事案而言，民事案中败诉的后果一般都只是经济利益，所以法庭对举证的要求，相对也较刑事案为低。

英文释义：Also known as "preponderance of the evidence", this is the standard required in most civil cases. The standard is met if the proposition is more likely to be true than not true. Effectively, the standard is satisfied if there is greater than 50% chance that the proposition is true. Lord Denning in Miller v.

参考双语例句：

He may, however, collect evidence in two situations: at the request of a party or a victim participating in the proceedings, when the requesting party or the victim demonstrates, on a balance of probabilities, that it is not in a position to collect the evidence itself, and the Pre-Trial Judge considers that doing so would be in the interests of justice (rule 92 (A)); and secondly, where a party or a victim participating in the proceedings is unable to collect “an important piece of evidence” that the Pre-Trial Judge deems indispensable to the fair administration of justice, the equality of arms and the search for truth (rule 92 (C)).

但是，他可在两种 情形下收集证据：在一当事方或一参与诉讼的被害人的请求下，并且请求方或被害人在盖然性权衡后显示其本身无法收集证据而预审法官亦认为这样做有利于司法工作(规则92(A))；第二，当一当事方或参与诉讼的被害人无法收集“一件重要的证据”而预审法官亦认为这一证据对于公正司法、权利平等和寻求真相而言必不可缺(规则92(C))。

In an inquiry of this nature, there is generally no onus of proof on any party, but the Commission considers it fair and proper to adopt the basic principle of “he who alleges has the burden of proof”, and the Commission also adopts the civil standard of proof on a balance of probabilities, i.e. the “more likely than not” test.

就这种性质的调查研讯而言，通常任何一方都毋须负上举证责任，但委员会认为採用“由提出指控一方负责举证”的基本原则，是公平及合适的做法，而委员会亦採用衡量相对可能性的民事举证标准，即以“较有可能”为验证标准。

For this reason, regards will have to be given to the human rights principle of the "right to a fair trial", i.e. criminal charges must be proved beyond reasonable doubt and other safeguards e.g. privilege against self discrimination, while civil actions are decided on the balance of probabilities.11 6.14 We note that the Joint Committee in its report on the draft Bill has made the following remark: "…it is well-established that courts or tribunals in a civil action can apply a "sliding scale" of proof, applying more or less the criminal standard where criminal-type penalties are at stake.

因此，“有权享有公平审判”的人权原则必须顾及，即刑事控罪必须证实没有合理疑点，并且有其他保障措施，例如享有免于自我入罪的特权，而民事诉讼则只按相对可能性的衡量作出决定11。6.14代表团察悉，联合委员会在其就该法案拟稿撰写的报告中提出以下的意见：“…法院或审裁处在审讯民事案件时可以採取一套“按比例计算”的原则为举证准则，而对于被判罚则属刑事类别的案件，则採用与刑事案件相若的举证准则，是一套确立已久的方法。

They will have a defence if they prove, on the lower standard of balance of probabilities, that none of the purpose for which they engaged in these acts is to create a false or misleading appearance of active trading in the market.

他们如能在相对可能性的衡量下，证明他们作出这些行为的目的，无一是在于造成证券交投活跃的虚假或具误导性的表象，则可以此为免责辩护。