The Defendant (“Lorrnel”), in an Action for trespass, nuisance, and unlawful interference with economic interests relating to property, appealed a Master’s Decision which refused Summary Dismissal of the Plaintiff’s (“Callan”) Claim.

Lee J. noted that a “correctness” standard of review applies on an Appeal from the Master under Rule 6.14. Justice Lee stated that Summary Dismissal helps to fulfill the principles set out in the Foundational Rules and “ensures that only claims with merit proceed”. If a Claim is not meritorious, it is just that it be dismissed early on. Although the Court should not determine “disputed or contentious questions of fact”, where the evidence of one party “destroys” the other party’s evidence during Questioning on Affidavit, or evidence renders one party completely noncredible, then a Master may draw inferences and accept certain facts. Justice Lee commented that Summary Judgment Applications must be decided on the material before the Court, and not on what might be pleaded in the future. Further, Summary Judgment Applications require both parties to put their best evidence forward.

Upon review of the record before the Court, Justice Lee observed that the Plaintiff made assertions in Affidavits without tangible evidence, and a number of allegations could not be given any weight. The Court held that the Plaintiff’s Claim had no merit, and granted Summary Dismissal accordingly.