Case No. UKUT-00629-(IAC)

[1956] AC 14. While their Lordships were not uniform in their formulation of the governing principle, it suffices to recall what Lord Radcliffe stated (at page 9 ): “ I do not think that it much matters whether this state of affairs is described as one in which there is no evidence to support the determination or as one in which the evidence is inconsistent with and contradictory of the determination or as one in which the true and only reasonable conclusion contradicts the determination. Rightly understood, each phrase propounds the same test. ” The test for unreasonableness, which later became known as perversity , or irrationality, is whether the decision under appeal is one which no person acting judicially and properly instructed on the relevant law could reasonably have made. The restraint which an appellate court must exercise, having regard to these principles, features in the decision of the House of Lords in