LEGAL PRINCIPLE: APPELLATE PRACTICE – Concurrent Findings of Fact – Interference by Supreme Court
PRINCIPLE STATEMENT
The principle is that this court will not interfere with concurrent findings of fact of the trial court and the Court of Appeal unless such findings are perverse. A finding supported by adequately evaluated evidence cannot be said to be perverse.
RATIO DECIDENDI (SOURCE)
"The principle is that this court will not interfere with concurrent findings of fact of the trial court and the Court of Appeal unless such findings are perverse. A finding supported by adequately evaluated evidence cannot be said to be perverse."
EXPLANATION / SCOPE
The Supreme Court will not interfere with concurrent findings of fact unless they are perverse. A finding supported by adequately evaluated evidence is not perverse. Perversity means the finding runs counter to the evidence, ignores material facts, or is based on wrong inferences. The appellant must demonstrate manifest error or injustice. Mere disagreement is insufficient. The principle respects the fact-finding roles of lower courts and promotes finality. The burden on the appellant is heavy. The court will not re-evaluate evidence simply because it might have reached a different conclusion. Interference is exceptional, not routine. The principle applies to all appeals against concurrent findings. The court examines whether the lower courts properly evaluated the evidence.
