'Fresh law' is simply the arguing of new legal principles at the appeal level that were not argued below. 'Fresh law' is my own term. I use as it is similar to the widely-used term 'fresh evidence', which is used in appeal [and also in judicial review (JR)] law when the appellant wants to supplement the evidentiary record that was created at the lower court or tribunal for the purpose of the appeal (or JR).
A typical example of 'fresh law' might be a self-presenting party that loses the case at the first level, but - as they learn more about the applicable law - gets 'better' ideas about how to present their case. It is a principle that applies broadly whenever there was any form of hearing, or any oppourtunity to argue law, at the level below - thus I locate in the 'review (appeal and JR)' sub-topic.
'Fresh law' is not a ground of review, it is rather a appellate 'defence' to it. It can be used by a respondent when the appellant attempts to argue a 'new' legal theory, but it is most often raised by the court (or tribunal) itself without the respondent raising it independently.
