For those that aren't legally trained, such appeals are undertaken because there are uncertainties in the law that has not been determined. There is no way it can be determined other than through the courts (precedent in case law) or legislature (codified in statute). Sure, it costs time and money, but the intention of those lawyers is not malicious. They couldn't get legislature to implement clarity, so they take it via the only alternative road. It is not the fault of the lawyers that there is a backlog of cases, and for using the system in site of those cases. The judges could have been more helpful if they can suggest how pertinent legal points can be resolved without "abuse" instead of merely criticising the lawyers for creative (and not even that creative, test cases have been the norm for decades in the original commonwealth system from the UK) use of the system.