Lord Reid's judgment significantly broadens the potential scope of review.

Lord Reid then applied the principle with particular emphasis on foreseeability.

Lord Reid said the defence is unavailable for the following reasons.

In his judgment, Lord Reid differentiated between the arguments put forth by the parties.

Lord Reid said that the courts must carry out this task by construing the Act as a whole.

Lord Reid stated that the requirement for natural justice in that case was clearly outweighed by the public interest.

Lord Reid also referred to the additional factor, the incidence of taxation.

The second test is also contained in Lord Reid's judgment.

Lord Reid identified why the agreement was in restraint of trade.

Lord Reid considered that the case was one of remoteness of damage.