'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 it 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 an appeal/JR (together, 'review') procedural doctrine, raised by either party seeking to add a new ground of review or legal principle on review. Typically, the party seeking to add the fresh law should seek express permission from the court by motion to do so, as the default presumption will be that an appeal/JR is restricted to the legal grounds argued below.
