The higher court will confine itself to matters that the appellant disputes, and is able to provide reasons why the decision should be modified or reversed. This latter point is important - it is not enough for the appellant to say "I disagree" or "I don't like the decision" - he or she must argue their case.
The respondants will then have a chance to submit their argument(s) in writing, and the case will then be considered by the court. The court may choose to request the sides to present their cases in person.
If the second court produces the same decision, then the matter ends there. If there is a dispute, it may proceed to the supreme court.
Yep, but the injunction circus seems to have been more complicated than that, according to Kate's book.
An injunction was filed, which was rejected (any damage already done).
They appealed, and won.
GA counter appealed, and lost.
GA appealed to the SC and won.
Unless I got lost somewhere along the way...