Most types of errors fall into this category of judicial discretion and are very difficult to obtain on appeal, but not as difficult as for factual errors. If a judge makes an error in exercising this discretion, that is not sufficient grounds for appeal, unless you can prove that the judge “abused” this discretion. In cases of “abuse of authority,” the error is obvious because, for example, the evidence presented at trial clearly does not support the judge`s decision or the judge`s decision was completely unreasonable. For example, in a custody case, suppose that when weighing the factors required to determine what is in the best interests of the child, the judge places a lot of emphasis on the fact that the other party`s house has one more room than yours, but very little emphasis on the fact that the other party has committed domestic violence and has a substance abuse problem. Furthermore, in Prem v. Deputy Custodian General, the Court held that a court order seeking judicial review for “manifest error of law” should be an order to speak, that is, it must state the reasons for the decision and demonstrate gross ignorance or disregard for the law. In R v. Lord President of the Privy Council, page ex parte, Lord Browne-Wilkinson interpreted Anisminic as the decision that renders obsolete the distinction between “prima facie error of jurisprudence of the record” and other “errors of law” by extending the doctrine ultra vires. There are different types of errors that can occur in a court proceeding or administrative decision. These are jurisdictional errors, errors of law and errors of law that are obvious at first glance. There is a clear distinction between an error of law and an error of jurisdiction. Extrajudicial errors are commonly referred to as “errors of fact.” They do not concern a point of law and do not normally affect the decision-making power or decision-making power of a decision-maker.
This includes failure to comply with a legal provision that requires a decision-maker to provide reasons. It could be a legal mistake if your child is still a student and the judge simply forgot that family law states that full-time students, even if they are over 18, can still be eligible for child support. This could be a factual error if your child is under 18 but the judge received the wrong information, perhaps because you have another child over 18. This principle was adopted in India from English law. This has led to some confusion due to the technical intricacies of distinguishing between patent and latent errors. Although scientists and judges have tried to make a distinction, many jurists oppose the idea of such a distinction. Lord Denning was not convinced by the distinction between such errors for two main reasons: the establishment of administrative tribunals is a necessary step in this regard. In addition to diluting the burden of cases before the courts, these specialised courts also have experts in this field and staff trained as judicial authorities. This ensures that the authority is familiar with the subject and is better able to understand the intricacies of litigation in advance than ordinary court judges. However, the mere fact that the decision-making authority is familiar with this area does not establish the premiss that its decisions are not subject to judicial review.
The courts and judicial authorities have a wide margin of appreciation and a control mechanism must be put in place to prevent abuses and abuses of this power. The courts continue to prosecute and monitor abuses of these powers and constantly seek to reduce arbitrariness, while recognizing the importance and respect of the discretion of these authorities. The difference between an error of law and an error of jurisdiction is tiny.