In which situation would a 'de novo' review likely occur?

A 'de novo' review refers to a higher court's re-examination of a case without relying on the previous court's findings. It emphasizes a fresh look at the facts and the law, as if the case were being heard for the first time.

This is particularly relevant in situations where an initial decision is contested, as parties may feel that the original findings were flawed either factually or legally. In this scenario, a 'de novo' review allows for a complete re-assessment, providing an opportunity to evaluate all aspects anew without being bound by earlier interpretations or conclusions.

In contrast, new laws being enacted typically do not involve a 'de novo' review since this concept relates more to legal proceedings than to the legislative process. Jurisdictional challenges often focus on whether a court has the authority to hear a case rather than re-evaluating the merits of an initial decision. Meanwhile, routine administrative reviews are generally more about confirming compliance with procedures as opposed to re-assessing the facts in a way that would constitute a 'de novo' review. Thus, the most appropriate context for a 'de novo' review is indeed when an initial decision is contested.