Appeals and Review
Foundations
Appeals challenge a decision before a higher forum; review asks the same court to reconsider its own decision. They are distinct remedies with distinct grounds and limits.
Concepts to master
- Right of appeal is statutory; no appeal lies unless conferred by law.
- Grounds of appeal must target errors of law, misappreciation of evidence, or procedural irregularity; an appeal is not a fresh trial de novo in the ordinary sense.
- Cross-objections allow a respondent to challenge adverse findings without filing a separate appeal.
- Review is confined to: discovery of new and important matter or evidence, mistake or error apparent on the face of the record, or any other sufficient reason. It is not a disguised appeal.
- Time limits for appeal and review are strict; condonation of delay requires sufficient cause.
- Powers of the appellate court include confirming, reversing, varying, or remanding the decree.
Traps in questions
- Using review to re-argue the merits.
- Filing an appeal without exhausting statutory pre-conditions (e.g., required deposit or notice).
- Forgetting cross-objections and losing the ability to challenge adverse findings.
- Assuming an appellate court can entertain new evidence freely.
Rule of thumb
Wrong decision? Appeal. Wrong on the face of the record? Review. If the error requires re-weighing evidence, review is not the remedy.
Worked example
A party loses on a finding of fact and seeks review, alleging the court misappreciated evidence. That is an appealable error, not an error apparent on the face of the record; review should be dismissed. If instead the decree contains a clerical computation error, review is appropriate.