Appeal and Judicial Review Lawyers
Arguments that resonate require skillful tuning, precise drafting of factums and persuasive advocacy.
In situations that merit appeal, an appellate court will not retry a case. The Court of Appeal will rarely substitute its views of what it thinks the evidence establishes for what was determined by the trial judge. Intervention by an appellate court will depend on the type of error committed by the trial judge. This is referred to as the standard of review.
On a pure question of law, the general rule is that an appellate court is free to replace the opinion of the trial judge with its own. If the decision concerning a question of law by the trial judge is incorrect, it will be overturned. Thus the standard of review on a question of law is that of correctness.
On questions of fact however, the standard of review is more stringent and appellate courts will refrain from intervening with the factual determinations of the trial judge. Findings of fact by the trial judge are not to be reversed unless it can be established that the trial judge made a clear and serious error or what is referred to as a “palpable and overriding error”.
DEFENDING VICTORIES & SUCCESSFULLY CHALLENGING ADVERSE RULINGS
- Identifying & framing the legal issues
- In depth legal research
- Persuasive written & oral advocacy