Whether the appeal against the first-instance order was admissible despite lacking specific conclusions and recognizable grounds
The appeal was inadmissible because the appellant did not state precise conclusions or recognizable appeal grounds, even after being invited to remedy the defect.
Under the applicable cantonal procedure, an appeal must contain the exact relief sought. A mere narrative of facts is insufficient. The appellant's corrected submission still contained no conclusions and did not challenge either the withdrawal finding or the costs order.