Whether this many degrees of probability are used in practice in civil cases, is debatable. As a rule, the relevant degrees of probability will be somewhat below or barely above 50%, or qualified preponderance of probability. It is difficult to indicate how many percentages are required for there to be qualified preponderance of probability. However, at least 65% is probably required.
There are few situations where the requirement for probability can be lower than 50%, but examples exist. In April 2002, the Supreme Court concluded that somewhat below preponderance of probability may be sufficient in order for knowledge of possible future circumstances to constitute inside information (HR-2022-695-A). Schjødt argued this case for the party that prevailed with this point of view.
More commonly, though still as an exception, the preponderance of probability principle can be deviated from by making the standard of proof requirement stricter. A stricter standard of proof is usually formulated as a qualified preponderance of probability. In some cases, this follows from statutory provisions, e.g., in employment law. Other exceptions have also been established in non-statutory law (typically case law).
Stricter standards of proof may apply, e.g., if the personal consequences of an incorrect judgment will be substantially worse for one of the parties. Correspondingly, a stricter standard of proof may apply in the event of particularly incriminating facts, e.g., allegations of highly censurable conduct. It is worth noting, however, that it is only in cases where the civil law claim is conditioned by a fact that is particularly burdensome for one of the parties that the standard of proof can be made stricter. This means that even if the standard of proof is made stricter in relation to a compensation claim, the preponderance of probability principle applies when determining the scope of the compensation claim, i.e., the assessment of compensation (see HR-2018-874-A).
Considerations for securing of evidence may also lead to a stricter standard of proof. There is case law to the effect that if one party has had the opportunity and invitation to secure evidence for an actual circumstance, while the other party has not had the corresponding opportunity or invitation, this may provide basis for allowing evidentiary doubt to affect the party who could and should have secured the relevant evidence. In such a case, the actual circumstance must be proven with more than a general preponderance of probability. However, the case law to this exception is not unambiguous, and has been subject to scholarly debate.