A plaintiff generally needs to show only that a preponderance of the evidence supports his or her claim.

And to proceed with a lawsuit, a plaintiff would need only a doctor's certification that the injury is, in fact, permanent.

To win the injunction, the plaintiffs needed only to demonstrate a "reasonable probability of success" at a full trial.

The plaintiff no longer needs to be involved in the litigation and can avoid the cost of continuing litigation.

As in other failure to disclose cases, the plaintiff will need to show that doctor owed a duty to make the disclosures at issue.

Specifically the court indicated that the plaintiffs needed to establish:

Defendants must be encouraged to make fair and reasonable offers at an early stage; plaintiffs need incentives to accept them.

The plaintiff need only demonstrate that the acts themselves were committed.

The plaintiff did not need to prove how long the spill had been there, because the burden of proof was on Tesco.

The plaintiff need not have been aware of the injuria at the time.