No Squawk, it isn’t “innocent until proven guilty”. That standard applies to criminal cases. This is a civil case and from memory, the standard is “on the balance of probabilities”.
Djpil and Squawk, IANAL, but my educated guess (having copped a commercial lawsuit years ago) is that the case will revolve around two allegations; that SOAR and Box Hill were knowingly and deliberately not acting “in good faith” in discharging their responsibilities under the contracts, and secondly, the training provided was knowingly sub standard and not fit for purpose.
The key to this is the question of “good faith” (there are various levels of good faith right up to absolute good faith) which is a legal requirement for a contract to be binding - both parties need to act in good faith, in other words, that they both intend to the best of their abilities to honestly and completely deliver their side of the bargain. That includes a requirement that both parties must trust each other and deal honestly with each other.
I suggest that if half of what the students allege is true, they will have little trouble proving on the balance of probabilities that Box Hill and Soar were not acting in good faith.
‘’My guess is that Box Hill will settle out of court. Otherwise all their courses will be tarred with the same brush.
Lawyers please correct me.