This was an Appeal from a decision of Master Hanebury regarding a reduction of allowed disbursement amounts for three experts’ reports. Tilleman J. confirmed that an Appeal from a Master is on the record of proceedings before the Master, stating “the appeal of a Master’s decision is not meant to be a ‘new hearing’ unless there is significant new evidence caught by the test in Rule 6.14(3).” Tilleman J. noted that he may have constructed his reasons differently but that he would have reached a similar costs decision had he exercised his own discretion. The Master’s Decision was not in error, let alone an overriding and palpable error, and the Appeal was dismissed. His Lordship stated: 

In a record review, our role then is to dismiss unless there is overriding and palpable error as it relates to the facts determined below, meaning, the Master made a clear and obvious mistake.