LEGAL PRINCIPLE: APPELLATE PRACTICE – Grounds of Appeal – Distinction Between Question of Law and Question of Fact
PRINCIPLE STATEMENT
It is always difficult to distinguish a ground of law from a ground of fact but what is required is to examine thoroughly the grounds of appeal to see whether the grounds reveal a misunderstanding by the lower tribunal of the law or a misapplication of the law to the facts already proved or admitted, in which case it would be a question of law; or one that would require questioning the evaluation of facts by the lower tribunal before application of the law, in which case it would amount to a question of mixed law and fact.
RATIO DECIDENDI (SOURCE)
"It is always difficult to distinguish a ground of law from a ground of fact but what is required is to examine thoroughly the grounds of appeal in the case concerned to see whether the grounds reveal a misunderstanding by the lower tribunal of the law or a misapplication of the law to the facts already proved or admitted in which case it would be a question of law or one that would require questioning the evaluation of facts by the lower tribunal before application of the law in which case it would amount to a question of mixed law and fact."
EXPLANATION / SCOPE
Distinguishing law from fact questions requires examining what the ground challenges: Pure law question: (a) misunderstanding of legal principles—court applied wrong law; (b) misapplication of law to established facts—court applied right law incorrectly to facts that are proved/admitted. These challenge legal analysis, not fact-finding. Mixed law and fact: questioning the fact evaluation before determining correct law application—requires reviewing how facts were found/assessed, then applying law to properly found facts. This challenges both fact-finding and legal application. Pure fact: challenging only how evidence was assessed or facts were found. The distinction matters because: pure law grounds may not require leave; mixed/fact grounds typically require leave for interlocutory appeals; and different appellate standards apply (law—no deference; facts—deference). The test: can the ground be resolved by examining legal principles applied to established facts (law)? or must the appellate court re-examine how facts were found (mixed/fact)? This framework, though “always difficult,” provides methodology for characterization crucial to appellate procedure.