into account (and the wrong ones for them to ignore!). Inevitably, the number of successful appeals is likely to be small, as long as the judge at first instance has not self evidently misdirected him/herself the scope for appellate review is limited. However, in principle, there would seem to be a clear role for appellate courts in helping to shape or channel the application of the reasonableness test. Without this there is the obvious criticism that a judicially administered reasonableness requirement is conducive to considerable uncertainty in the law. Such judicial comment as there has been on this point is a little ambiguous: George Mitchell (Chesterhall) Ltd v Finney Lock Seeds Ltd [1983] 2 AC 803, HL, p 815

doi:10.4324/9781843141518-193

Chapter

No Image Available

Chapter

into account (and the wrong ones for them to ignore!). Inevitably, the number of successful appeals is likely to be small, as long as the judge at first instance has not self evidently misdirected him/herself the scope for appellate review is limited. However, in principle, there would seem to be a clear role for appellate courts in helping to shape or channel the application of the reasonableness test. Without this there is the obvious criticism that a judicially administered reasonableness requirement is conducive to considerable uncertainty in the law. Such judicial comment as there has been on this point is a little ambiguous: George Mitchell (Chesterhall) Ltd v Finney Lock Seeds Ltd [1983] 2 AC 803, HL, p 815

ABSTRACT

George Mitchell (Chesterhall) Ltd v Finney Lock Seeds Ltd [1983] 2 AC 803, HL, p 815

Lord Bridge: ... in having regard to the various matters to which ... s 11 of the Act of 1977 direct(s) attention, the court must entertain a whole range of considerations, put them in the scales on one side or the other, and decide at the end of the day on which side the balance comes down. There will sometimes be room for a legitimate difference of judicial opinion as to what the answer should be, where it will be impossible to say that one view is demonstrably wrong, and the other demonstrably right. It must follow, in my view, that, when asked to review such a decision on appeal, the appellate court should treat the original decision with the utmost respect, and refrain from interference with it unless satisfied that it proceeded upon some erroneous principle or was plainly and obviously wrong.