Not exact matches
There are times when such inferences are based on a «
robust», though nonetheless legitimate, exercise of fact finding... Here I do not consider that such an inference requires a particularly «
robust»
approach to fact finding; instead, I consider it to be both pragmatic and an exercise of «
common sense».»
Not apply the
robust, pragmatic
common sense approach because expert evidence was applied.
The fact of this evidence, given that the trial judge accepted it, eliminates the need to resort to the Snell
robust and pragmatic,
common sense approach.
If, as seems to be the case, the trial judge in the new Fisher trial did apply the Snell
robust and pragmatic
common sense approach, then, assuming there is an appeal and assuming that Aristorenas is still good law once Clements is decided, the Court of Appeal may have to determine whether Fisher is consistent with Aristorenas.
One might say the Court has defined a
robust and pragmatic
approach to be a
common sense approach, or a
common sense approach to be a
robust and pragmatic
approach.
I'm not sure what conclusion we should draw from the panel's «failure» to describe the Snell
approach as one that requires «a
robust, pragmatic and
common sense»
approach.