Under what circumstances can a case be considered to have "no reasonable prospect of success"?

A case can be deemed to have "no reasonable prospect of success" when it is considered to lack strong evidence necessary to support the claims being made. This assessment reflects a scenario where, while the case may not be utterly without merit, the evidence available does not sufficiently meet the threshold that would likely lead to a favorable outcome in court.

The legal system requires a certain level of substantiated proof; without strong evidence, a case may be viewed as unlikely to prevail in litigation. This evaluation informs decisions about whether to pursue a case further or to consider settlement alternatives.

In contrast, a situation described as unlikely to succeed (as noted in the first option) does not strictly evaluate the sufficiency of evidence, while a case not bound to fail but lacking strong proof does not adequately capture the essence of having no reasonable prospects. The third option suggests that preliminary support exists, which contradicts the notion of having no reasonable prospect, and the fourth implies that the case meets basic legal standards, which suggests some likelihood of proceeding in court, contrary to the phrase in question.