Burden of Proof (“CD”)

It breeds the most injustices alongside causality.
I give an example: The Client of the Bank transferred to the so-called special Technical Account the amount of PLN X million. The Bank was to use this amount at any given TIME to repay the mortgages established for that Bank. The bank used this amount and satisfied its mortgages. The main question: whether the Bank made the transfer at the agreed TIME and in accordance with the procedures.

According to the CD, the Client is to prove that the Bank has violated internal procedures. The client does not have access to these procedures, the organization of the bank’s work. Under the UK system, the Bank would be required – under the so-called disclosure – to disclose all this information. According to KPC, the Client has a CD of facts that are not in the sphere of knowledge and control of the Client. Bank employees testify that the transfer was regular. Details do not remember. The client – somewhat blindly – formulates a request for an expert in IT and banking procedures to verify these testimonies. Will the court allow expert evidence at all if the request for evidence is imprecisely worded (how precise is it to be and on what basis if the Customer has no knowledge)?

Is this burden of proof:
(a) treats the parties equally,
(b) is equitable, and
(c) fair.