The Court of Appeal reviewed a Chambers Judge’s decision to allow an Appeal from the Decision of a Master, overturning a grant of Summary Judgment. The Chambers Judge held that the allegation that the two Defendant corporations were in a partnership raised an issue to be tried.

The Court noted that Summary Judgment must only be granted “if there is no genuine issue of material fact requiring a trial…the question is whether an issue of law can fairly be decided on the record before the court”. The Court upheld the Chambers Judge’s Decision holding that the Defendant corporations had failed to meet their burden and prove that it was plain and obvious that there was no partnership between them.

However, the Court found that the Chambers Judge erred in granting Summary Dismissal of the Plaintiff’s claim in agency. The Chambers Judge improperly required proof of all the requirements for a finding of agency. The Court found that there was sufficient evidence to warrant a Trial on the issue. Similarly, the Court found that it was premature to rule that the Plaintiff’s claim to pierce the corporate veil could not succeed and overturned the grant of Summary Dismissal on that issue as well.