The Appellant, Dyan Pettigrew, appealed a Summary Dismissal decision. The Court considered whether Summary Dismissal of the Plaintiff’s professional negligence and breach of contract claim was appropriate under Rule 7.3.

Ms. Pettigrew alleged that her former counsel failed to competently pursue an Attachment Order and Mareva Injunction, resulting in her inability to recover fully for losses from a house fire. The Applications Judge had summarily dismissed the claim. On Appeal, Justice Thompson conducted a de novo review and found that Mr. Llewellyn failed to meet the burden of proof required under Rule 7.3. The Court noted that Summary Dismissal is only appropriate where the moving party shows there is no merit to the claim and no genuine issue requiring a trial.

The Court analyzed the expert evidence provided on appeal to determine if Summary Dismissal could still be justified. The Court also considered Rule 6.14, which governs the admissibility of additional evidence on appeal. Justice Thompson admitted new expert evidence from both parties, finding that it might reasonably be expected to assist in determining whether there was a breach of the standard of care and whether that breach caused loss to the plaintiff. The Court rejected arguments that deficiencies in the expert’s qualifications should bar admissibility, noting that such concerns go to the weight of the evidence rather than its admissibility. With both sides presenting admissible but conflicting expert evidence, the Court concluded that the standard of care and whether it was breached could not be resolved on a summary basis. Thompson J. also noted that the Defendants' conduct, including delays and failure to gather evidence for the Attachment Order raised genuine issues requiring a trial.

Ultimately, the Court set aside the initial Summary Dismissal, holding that genuine issues remained regarding whether counsel was negligent and whether he caused Ms. Pettigrew’s losses. Justice Thompson stressed that Rule 7.3 should not be used to short-circuit claims where material issues of fact remain in dispute or where a full trial record is needed for a fair determination.