Appellate review of findings of fact is an important aspect of the legal process, ensuring that trial judges' decisions are carefully scrutinised for potential errors.

This blog post provides an overview of appellate reviews of findings of fact, including the principles that guide appellate courts in conducting these reviews.

The Real Review Standard

In Robinson Helicopter Co Inc v McDermott, the High Court articulated the standard of review for appellate courts when examining findings of fact.

Appellate courts are required to conduct a "real review" of the evidence and the trial judge's reasoning, and determine whether the judge has erred in fact or law.

However, appellate courts should not interfere with a trial judge's findings of fact unless they are:

glaringly improbable,
contrary to compelling inferences, or
demonstrably wrong based on incontrovertible facts or uncontested testimony.

Inferences from Findings of Fact

There has been some debate regarding whether the standard set forth in Robinson Helicopter applies to inferences drawn from findings of fact.

While the High Court has not directly addressed this issue, it has been resolved in other cases that the standard does not apply to inferences.

Instead, appellate courts are generally considered to be in as good a position as the trial judge to draw proper inferences from undisputed facts or facts found on the evidence.

Nevertheless, appellate courts must make "due allowance" for the fact that they have neither seen nor heard the witnesses, recognizing the trial judge's advantages in evaluating witness credibility and the overall "feeling" of a case (Fox v Percy).

Respect for the Trial Judge's Conclusions

Appellate courts should give respect and weight to the conclusions reached by the trial judge.

However, once the appellate court has conducted its real review and reached its own conclusion, it must give effect to that conclusion, even if it differs from the trial judge's decision.

The appellate court is still required to conduct a real review of the trial and the judge's reasoning, ensuring that any errors in fact or law are identified and corrected.