The Tasmanian Full Court accepts that illogicality or irrationality in a Tribunal's reasoning may constitute an error of law reviewable under s 25(1) of the RMPAT Act, departing from the broader proposition in St Helen's that such reasoning could never raise a question of law. However, the threshold remains high: a decision will not be illogical or irrational if there is room for a logical or rational person to reach the same decision on the material before the decision-maker. Settlement correspondence that does not constitute a true Calderbank offer may still be given significant weight in a costs decision without engaging Calderbank principles.
The full text is available to signed-in members.