In Australian litigation, appealing a court decision is a crucial legal avenue for individuals and businesses seeking justice. However, appeals are not granted simply because one party is dissatisfied with the outcome. Instead, an appeal must be based on specific legal grounds, typically an error of law or an error of fact. Understanding these distinctions is vital for anyone involved in legal disputes, as they can significantly impact the success of an appeal.

This article explores the key differences between an error of law and an error of fact, their implications in litigation, and how courts assess them in appeal proceedings.

What is an Error of Law?

An error of law occurs when a judge misinterprets or misapplies legal principles. This can include:

• Incorrect interpretation of legislation – Misreading or misapplying a statute.
• Misapplication of legal precedent – Failing to follow binding case law.
• Improper legal reasoning – Applying the wrong legal test to a case.
• Denial of procedural fairness – Not allowing a party to present evidence or arguments.
• Jurisdictional errors – When a court hears a case outside its legal authority.

Examples of an Error of Law in Litigation

• Misinterpretation of Statutes - A court incorrectly applies a section of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) in a property settlement case, leading to an unfair division of assets.
• Failure to Apply Precedent - A judge ignores a High Court ruling that is binding in a similar case, resulting in a wrongful conviction.
• Breach of Procedural Fairness - A tribunal refuses to allow a key witness to testify, violating the principles of natural justice.

 Errors of law are generally reviewable on appeal, meaning a higher court can overturn a lower court’s decision if a legal mistake is proven.

What is an Error of Fact?

An error of fact occurs when a judge or tribunal makes a mistake in assessing the evidence. This can include:

• Misinterpretation of evidence – Giving undue weight to one piece of evidence over another.
• Failure to consider relevant facts – Ignoring crucial witness testimony or documentary evidence.
• Reliance on incorrect factual assumptions – Making findings not supported by any evidence.

Examples of an Error of Fact in Litigation

• Wrong Witness Credibility Assessment - A judge finds a witness unreliable based on incorrect assumptions, affecting the case outcome.
• Overlooking Crucial Evidence - A court fails to consider CCTV footage proving an accused person’s alibi, leading to a wrongful conviction.
• Misinterpretation of Financial Documents - In a corporate dispute, a tribunal misunderstands financial statements, resulting in an unfair commercial ruling.

 Errors of fact are generally more difficult to appeal unless they are unreasonable or clearly unsupported by evidence. Appellate courts tend to defer to the original fact-finding court unless the error is blatant.

Key Differences Between an Error of Law and an Error of Fact

Aspect	Error of Law	Error of Fact
Definition	A mistake in applying or interpreting the law.	A mistake in understanding or assessing evidence.
Appeal Likelihood	More likely to be overturned on appeal.	Harder to appeal unless clearly unreasonable.
Reviewability	Higher courts can reconsider and correct.	Higher courts are more deferential to lower courts.
Examples	Misinterpretation of legislation, procedural unfairness.	Misjudging witness credibility, overlooking key evidence.
Impact on Case	Can change the legal outcome entirely.	May require reconsideration of facts, but not necessarily legal principles.

How Australian Courts Handle Appeals Based on Legal and Factual Errors

The appeals process in Australia varies depending on whether an appeal is based on an error of law or error of fact.

Appeals Based on an Error of Law

• Appeals can be brought before the Federal Court of Australia or the High Court of Australia if a legal error is identified.
• Courts assess whether the trial judge misapplied the law and whether this affected the case outcome.
• If an error of law is found, the appellate court can overturn the decision or order a retrial.

Appeals Based on an Error of Fact

• The standard of review is stricter for errors of fact.
• Courts give deference to the original judge’s assessment unless the finding was clearly wrong or unreasonable.
• The appeal court does not rehear the case but evaluates whether the lower court’s factual findings were rational and supported by evidence.

Case Studies: Error of Law vs Error of Fact in Australian Litigation

Case Study 1: Appeal Based on an Error of LawA business dispute arose under the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth). The trial judge ruled in favour of a plaintiff based on an incorrect reading of the law regarding director duties. On appeal, the Federal Court of Australia found that the judge had misinterpreted the legislation, overturning the decision and ordering a retrial.

Case Study 2: Appeal Based on an Error of FactIn a personal injury claim, a plaintiff argued that a judge had wrongly dismissed medical evidence proving negligence. The Court of Appeal reviewed the evidence but upheld the original decision, stating that the factual assessment by the trial judge was reasonable.

External Resources for More Information

• Federal Court of Australia
• High Court of Australia
• Australian Law Reform Commission

Appealing a case requires a thorough understanding of whether an error of law or error of fact has occurred. Given the complexity of the appeals process, legal expertise is crucial. If you believe a court decision in your case was unfair due to a legal or factual mistake, it is essential to consult a litigation lawyer to assess your options.

At New South Lawyers, we specialise in litigation and appeals, ensuring your rights are protected throughout the legal process. Our team can provide strategic advice and representation to help you navigate the complexities of appeals.

Contact New South Lawyers today for a consultation on your litigation matter. Whether you need to challenge a legal ruling or clarify your appeal rights, we are here to help.