The Plaintiff appealed from a Master’s Decision which dismissed its Application for Summary Judgment as against the Defendant, and refused Summary Dismissal of the Defendant’s Counterclaim. Wilson J. referred to Rule 6.14 which governs appeals of Master’s decisions. Justice Wilson reviewed the record and observed that no further or additional evidence was offered by either party.

With respect to the Summary Judgment Application, Wilson J. noted that, essentially, this Action arose from a contractual dispute. Wilson J. found that the underlying contract was unclear, and the Master was correct in determining that one of the real issues in the case was the expectations of the parties. Wilson J. agreed that there was a genuine issue for Trial and so upheld the Master’s Decision to refuse Summary Judgment as against the Defendant.

Justice Wilson then considered the appeal of the Decision which denied Summary Dismissal of the Defendant’s Counterclaim. His Lordship noted that the Counterclaim was over a matter of an exclusionary clause in the contract between the parties. After reviewing prior leading authority with respect to exclusionary clauses, Wilson J. found that there was no evidence to support the claim that the exclusion clause should not be applied. Wilson J. therefore allowed the Plaintiff’s Appeal and granted Summary Dismissal of the Counterclaim.