~ An appellate court will not disturb the factual findings underlying a chambers judge's order under the Hague Convention, in the absence of palpable or overriding error or the application of
the wrong legal test or principle.
By unreasonably narrowing the evidence that it considered, the Majority Panel asked the wrong question, and therefore applied
the wrong legal test.
Applying
the wrong legal test resulted in an unreasonable decision.
The Court's judgment concluded that: «the SFO failed to address relevant considerations, took into account irrelevant matters and applied
the wrong legal test to the assessment that it made.
The Board applied
the wrong legal test to determine whether there is sufficient evidence to support the random testing policy.
The Supreme Court considered that the Appeal Court, in assessing the compatibility of the extradition with ECHR, art 3, had applied
the wrong legal test.
An error in law, on the other hand, typically involves the application of
the wrong legal test.
The employer appealed, arguing that the tribunal had applied
the wrong legal test.
«2 That being said, the Court confirmed that if
the wrong legal test is applied or if the correct legal test is misapplied, that will result in the decision being found to be unreasonable.3
But what happens when a trial judge applies
the wrong legal test on causation?
The Court observed that it could not interfere with those findings in the absence of a finding that the chambers judge had committed a palpable and overriding error in making them, or had proceeded on the wrong legal principle or applied
the wrong legal test to them.