The Plaintiffs sued for outstanding payments for the purchase price of shares of Quintel Communications. The Defendants counterclaimed for misrepresentation of the value of the shares and breach of contract. The Defendants appealed the decision of a Master which granted Summary Judgment of part of the Claim. The Master also stayed enforcement of the award for six months, giving time for the Defendants to review financial information.

The Defendants sought to adduce new evidence on Appeal. Topolniski J. stated that evidence which was not before the Master must satisfy the requirements under Rule 6.14. This Rule requires new evidence to be significant enough that it could have affected the Master’s decision, and must be permitted by the Appeal Judge. The Court permitted the additional evidence to be adduced.

The Defendants argued that the Stay granted by the Master was unfair as it should have been extended further. Justice Topolniski considered Rule 1.4(2)(h), which provides that a Court may stay the effect of a Judgment where necessary, and is entirely discretionary. The Court held that it was unnecessary to extend the Stay of the Judgment, as it would have had to be paid in any event. Justice Topolniski considered Rule 7.3 and concluded that the Master was correct in granting the award. Part of the Appeal was dismissed and the Counterclaim was referred to Trial.