Federal Court. The grounds of appeal formulated by the self-represented appellant "do not appropriately articulate any appellable error by the primary judge. On their face, they simply ask this Court to detect jurisdictional error in the Tribunal’s decision". Would it be wholly inappropriate to read those grounds of appeal "as asserting that the learned primary judge erred by failing to detect the jurisdictional errors identified in grounds one and two"?
The Federal Court (FCA) said as follows:
27 The grounds of appeal [from a decision of the Federal Circuit Court to the FCA] as formulated do not appropriately articulate any appellable error by the primary judge. On their face, they simply ask this Court to detect jurisdictional error in the Tribunal’s decision. Necessarily, in order to succeed on an appeal, the appellant is required to identify and then demonstrate error in the primary judge’s decision. The formulation of words used by the self-represented appellant in this case fail to do this.
The FCA answered the above question as follows: