Balancing tests are a judicial method used to determine the fairest outcome for all parties by considering several factors against each other. They are used in complex situations where a fair result depends on multiple facts. Balancing tests give judges a high degree of discretion, but can lead to uncertainty and subjectivity in the final decision. An example of a balancing test is in an application for an injunction, where the court balances the difficulties of the two parties. Critics argue that balancing tests put too much judge subjectivity into the final decision.
A balancing test is a judicial method of considering several factors against each other in determining the fairest outcome for all parties. Balancing tests are generally used in cases where the fair outcome depends on several different facts that apply only to the present case. This line of analysis differs from a “bright line” test which articulates a clearly defined standard to apply to any situation it governs. Proponents of legal analysis through balancing tests argue that they have the advantage of allowing the judge to weigh any factors present that are of differing importance, which generally leads to the fairest outcome.
A judge is more likely to use a balancing test in a complex situation where a fair result can only be achieved through consideration of several factors affecting the parties in the case. This method gives the judge a high degree of discretion in determining the outcome of the dispute. Thus, there is often a greater degree of uncertainty in the parties who are arguing over an issue to be decided by a balance test than that of a brilliant line test. This uncertainty is the most common criticism of the balancing factor of legal analysis.
A common example of a balancing test used in US law is in an application for an injunction on a business, i.e. a plaintiff is asking the court to order the business to temporarily cease operations while some other final issue is decided. When considering an injunction, the court is said to “balance the difficulties” of the two parties. More specifically, the standard used is that, if the injunction will cause a hardship to the business that far outweighs the plaintiff’s benefit, the injunction will not be granted. It is entirely at the judge’s discretion to consider the evidence and decide what the respective difficulties are likely to be and whether they meet this standard.
Many people argue that using a balancing test allows for the greatest level of fairness to the parties involved in a complex dispute. Entrusting the judge with the use of his prudence in weighing and considering all the factors present makes it possible to consider the effects that would be missing in a brilliant analysis. However, in addition to the criticism that balancing tests lead to greater uncertainty in the parties before initiating litigation, critics argue that this line of analysis puts too much judge subjectivity into the final decision.
Protect your devices with Threat Protection by NordVPN
