How does a trial de novo differ from an appeal based only on a written record?

The primary difference between a trial de novo and an appeal based on a written record lies in how the reviewing court handles evidence and findings of fact.

• Trial de novo: This is essentially a retrial of the case. The appellate court hears evidence for a second time, makes fresh findings of fact, and proceeds in much the same manner as the original court. In common-law systems, this is typically reserved for reviewing cases from "inferior" courts that did not keep a formal record of proceedings.1
• Appeal based on a written record: In this process, the reviewing court does not receive evidence directly. Instead, it relies solely on the record compiled in the court below to determine if any serious legal errors occurred that require a reversal, modification, or a new trial. The focus is on questions of law rather than questions of fact, and the court often relies on briefs submitted by the litigants to clarify the legal issues at stake.1

While a trial de novo seeks to re-examine the facts, an appeal based on a record is designed to ensure the correct application of the law and to establish legal precedents.1