| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| umpires |
grounds of appeal |
natural justice and error in law or in fact |
|
Summary:
The Umpire erred in law in not having regard to whether the alleged error made by the Board was properly reviewable. The Umpire should have considered whether, on the evidence before it, a Board could reasonably have reached the conclusion it did even if he might have reached a different conclusion.
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| umpires |
grounds of appeal |
capricious finding |
req'd |
Summary:
Before the Umpire could make new findings of fact he would have to conclude that the Board's decision must be set aside for reviewable error of fact. This he did not do, but instead proceeded to overrule the Board as if on appeal, substituting his own conclusions of facts based on his observations.
