Before the Supreme Court, many appeals die at admission for lack of cassation interest. Disagreement with the lower judgment is not enough: the issue must matter beyond your case—contradictory case law or a relevant normative breach depending on the area of law. At Gaurley we read judgment and admission orders carefully before weeks of drafting. This analysis explains the filter and how to prepare it.
What cassation interest is
It justifies exceptional Supreme Court review, not a third pass on facts.
In civil matters it often requires a new question, contradiction, or objective need for uniform interpretation.
Criminal and labour rules differ; the map changes with procedural law.
Without a well-argued interest, the appeal may be inadmitted even if the party sees a clear error.
Contradiction and new questions
Cite comparable judgments resolving the same legal point differently—not merely unfavourably.
A new question is one not clearly settled by the Supreme Court or stable in lower courts.
General unfairness does not replace precedent research.
A strong interest section is bibliographic and technical, not narrative.
Mistakes leading to inadmission
Treating cassation as rehearing witnesses.
Late filing or attacking a non-appealable order.
Mixing procedural grounds unrelated to the judgment.
Recycling the trial brief without refocusing on admission.
Strategy before drafting
Read judgment, findings of fact and impugnable reasoning.
Map contradictory or gap precedents.
Consider parallel extraordinary remedies where available.
Be frank if investment is unwarranted: enforcement or another route may be wiser.
Send for first review
Full judgment, any admission order, notification dates.
Key trial pleadings and core documents—not the whole file unordered.
Remaining deadline and jurisdiction.
We then assess admission odds and drafting focus.