LEGAL PRINCIPLE: APPELLATE PRACTICE – Consequential Orders – Duty of Appellate Court to Make Consequential Orders

This principle addresses the appellate court’s obligation to provide complete relief when allowing an appeal. When an appellate court sets aside a trial court’s judgment and determines that the appellant should have succeeded below, it cannot merely reverse and remand but must make the consequential orders that logically and legally flow from the reversal. “Consequential orders” are those that give effect to the appellate court’s decision and provide the substantive relief the appellant sought at trial. For example: if the trial court dismissed a claim and the appellate court finds the claim should have succeeded, the appellate court must not only reverse the dismissal but also grant the specific reliefs claimed (declarations, injunctions, damages, etc.). The duty to make consequential orders serves several purposes: (1) it provides finality—parties receive final resolution rather than mere procedural victories requiring further proceedings; (2) it prevents multiplicity of proceedings—issues are conclusively determined rather than remanded for further litigation; (3) it ensures effective relief—appellate success translates into substantive remedies, not merely reversal without remedy; (4) it exercises full appellate jurisdiction—appellate courts have power to grant any relief the trial court could have granted. Failure to make consequential orders leaves appeals incomplete and parties without effective remedies despite appellate success. The principle recognizes that under modern appellate statutes and rules, appellate courts possess full jurisdiction over proceedings and can make any order the trial court could have made. This includes substituting their own findings and conclusions for those of the trial court and granting appropriate final relief. The obligation ensures that appellate justice is substantive and complete, not merely procedural or technical.