1

Bob sues Rob in a civil court (adversarial system).

Bob contends:

I am right and Rob is wrong because of A.

Rob defends:

No, A does not apply because of X.

Bob replies:

No way. X does not stand because of B. Therefore, A still applies.

The judge says:

I accept Rob's contention that A does not apply because of X. Bob has no case.

That said, the judge does not rebut or even talk about Bob's B (which negates Rob's X in Bob's view). It is known that Bob's reply was admitted and the judge definitely has seen it — it is not the case that it was dismissed for procedural reasons like late filing or whatever.

Where rights of appeal are not available for whatever reason (procedure-specific statutory prohibition, or the court already being the top court), are there any other remedies for Bob e.g. a claim of judicial misconduct?

1

A judge does not have to address every argument raised in their judgement

Otherwise every judgement would be absurdly long.

All the judgement needs to demonstrate is that the judge turned their mind to the arguments. The judge accepted X - implicit in this is the rejection of B. The judge has considered A and X and stated their reasons why they like X over A - it’s an appeal proof judgement on that point.

2
  • I wouldn't go as far as saying that the judgment is "appeal proof": the judge could have erred by ignoring that B actually refers to a case law that binds the court. – Greendrake Apr 29 '20 at 2:25
  • @Greendrake “on that point” being that B wasn’t specifically addressed- the judge can still be wrong about rejecting it. – Dale M Apr 29 '20 at 3:34

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.