LEGAL PRINCIPLE: APPELLATE PRACTICE – Concurrent Findings of Fact – Limited Grounds for Supreme Court Interference
PRINCIPLE STATEMENT
As is now well settled, as a general rule, the Supreme Court will not normally interfere with concurrent findings of fact unless there is some miscarriage of justice or a violation of some principles of law or procedure.
RATIO DECIDENDI (SOURCE)
"As is now well settled, as a general rule, this court will not normally interfere with such findings unless there is some miscarriage of justice or a violation of some principles of law or procedure."
EXPLANATION / SCOPE
This principle reiterates the Supreme Court’s settled approach to concurrent factual findings—findings made by both the trial court and Court of Appeal. When two courts independently examine evidence and reach the same factual conclusions, these findings enjoy a strong presumption of correctness and are rarely disturbed. The policy foundations include: (1) respect for the fact-finding process and the advantages trial courts have in assessing witnesses; (2) recognition that the Court of Appeal has already conducted appellate review of findings; (3) promotion of finality in litigation after two courts have considered the evidence; (4) focus on the Supreme Court’s primary role as a court of law rather than fact. However, the rule is not absolute—interference is warranted in two circumstances: First, “miscarriage of justice” occurs when findings are so unreasonable, unsupported by evidence, or contrary to the weight of evidence that allowing them to stand would result in manifest injustice. This requires demonstrating that no reasonable tribunal could have reached such findings on the evidence presented. Second, “violation of principles of law or procedure” includes: applying wrong burden of proof, admitting inadmissible evidence that substantially influenced findings, excluding admissible and material evidence, misunderstanding or mischaracterizing evidence, or making findings without evidentiary foundation. These violations must be substantial and affect the justice of the outcome. The principle maintains the three-tier court system’s division of labor while ensuring ultimate oversight against miscarriages of justice. The burden on appellants challenging concurrent findings is heavy—they must show not mere error but fundamental defects that affected justice. This high bar prevents the Supreme Court from becoming a court of third instance re-trying facts while ensuring its supervisory role over the administration of justice