![[2025] UKUT 051 (AAC)](https://backend.juristeca.com/files/emisores/logo_3a2BKne.png){kind=logo}
the test is a low one, but there must be at least some indication that the aspirations are realistic: Carsberg at [20]
the test is a low one, but there must be at least some indication that the aspirations are realistic: Carsberg at [20].
In Uptin House v Newcastle CC CR/2017/0006 at [55] Judge Findlay stated that
“Thestandard of proof in applying this test is the normal civil standard of proof i.e. the balance of probabilities, that is to say, more likely than not. On the basis of the case law I have considered that what is “realistic” may admit a number of possibilities none of which needs to be the most likely outcome. I have borne in mind that the case law suggests that it is important not to concentrate too closely on a hard-headed commercial or financial analysis and the legislation does not require a detailed business case.”
It follows from what I have said in the previous paragraph that I do not consider the first sentence of that paragraph to be an accurate statement of the law, although the second and third sentences are.
- Heading
- Section 1
- The First-tier Tribunal Decision
- Permission to Appeal
- The Statutory Framework
- The Grounds of Appeal
- The Council’s Submissions
- The Appellant’s Reply
- Analysis
- Section 9
- Section 10
- the test is not one of the civil standard of proof, which is designed to produce one outcome; the language of the statute is consistent with a number of realistic outcomes co-existing: Patel at [8], C
- it is important not to concentrate on the hard-headed commercial or financial analysis and a detailed business case is not required, but it is necessary to show a sensible and practical idea of what c
- the test is a low one, but there must be at least some indication that the aspirations are realistic: Carsberg at [20]
- The Decision under Appeal
- Conclusion Conclusions