I have always been fascinated with this beast. Sometimes I think I have slayed him or her and other times it (“it” is better, I think) escapes………
But to be true to myself, it is still on the run. In all my reading I have struggled to get my head around what a question of law ascribes to in practice. Yes I know that it is the means by which an appeal is triggered, upon success (and allowed) from a lower court or tribunal to the Supreme or District Courts. But it seems to me that not presenting a valid prima facie case for an appeal requiring the question or error at law being expressly identified to an associate or trial judge, spells disaster for the appellate punter.
Moreover, attempting to provide a cocktail of a quasi errors at law and revisiting the facts of the lower court in the hope of procuring the leave is kamikaze stuff, of the kind you would have expected your legal counsel to have dissuaded you from in the concept’s infancy?
What’s in it for your legal adviser – work, whether you win, lose or draw.
Where am I going with this? No it is not to bag our legal eagles, but rather state the fact that in my combing of decisions of various jurisdictions when I have the time, I find it extraordinary how many reported cases for leave to appeal fall hopelessly at the first hurdle – that is simply (it would seem), establishing the good old fashioned question of law that the original decision has done violence to.
Is this my imagination…?