The Plaintiffs commenced an Action against the Defendant following the termination of a lease agreement which allowed the Defendants to lease lands and remove gravel from the lands upon payment of a royalty to the Plaintiffs. The Plaintiffs claimed that royalty payments were owed. The Defendant contractors counterclaimed for damages resulting from being ejected from the lands. The Plaintiffs applied for Summary Judgment.

Master Robertson noted that Rule 7.3 allows the Court to grant Summary Judgment to an applicant if there is no defence to a claim or a part of a claim. Master Robertson held that the lease in question was not ambiguous, and that the Plaintiffs’ silence for nearly two years while the Defendants’ default accumulated did not give rise to an estoppel. The Defendant argued that the Claim and Counterclaim should be tried together because there could be a set-off of damages. Master Robertson noted that the Defendant had failed to provide any evidence to support their Counterclaim for damages, therefore there was “no reason not to grant judgment for that which has been shown to be owing”.

The Application was allowed and Judgment was granted.