LEGAL PRINCIPLE: APPELLATE PRACTICE – Grounds of Appeal – Substantial Ground – Requirement of Relevance to Judgment Appealed Against

This refines substantial ground doctrine (Principles 387, 389, 392-396). A ground is NOT substantial merely because: it raises general legal issue, addresses interesting question, or involves important principle—IF it’s unrelated to judgment being appealed and has no decisive relevance. “Substantial ground” requires: (1) Relation to judgment: Ground must address issues in judgment being appealed—not tangential legal questions. (2) Decisive relevance: Ground must be capable of affecting appeal outcome—not academic or collateral. “Unrelated to issues raised by judgment” means: ground doesn’t challenge what judgment decided, addresses different legal questions, or raises matters not implicated in decision. “No decisive relevance” means: even if ground succeeds, wouldn’t change outcome, isn’t material to judgment’s correctness, or is peripheral to actual decision. This serves: focusing appeals on judgment’s actual issues, preventing diversionary legal questions, and requiring grounds to meaningfully challenge impugned judgment. Courts assess: does ground address what judgment decided? could it affect outcome if successful? is it decisive or peripheral? General legal interest doesn’t suffice—ground must challenge actual judgment on material matters. This prevents: raising interesting but irrelevant legal questions, diverting from judgment’s actual issues, and academic appeals on tangential matters. Substantial grounds must: relate to judgment’s issues and possess decisive relevance.