The Plaintiff applied for Summary Judgment. Master Hanebury determined that there was certain evidence that was not before the Court at the time of the Application. It was decided that the missing evidence had the potential to raise a genuine issue for Trial.

It was noted that, given the facts that were actually before the Court at the time of the Application, the Court could have granted the Application along with leave for the Defendant to consider his Appeal rights. However, Master Hanebury determined that there was another option available.

On Appeal, Rule 6.14 would allow for the introduction of new evidence that was, in the opinion of the Judge hearing the Appeal, relevant and material. Master Hanebury also noted that Rules 1.2 (1) and (2) provide:

… that the purpose of the rules “is to provide a means by which claims can be fairly and justly resolved in or by a court process in a timely and cost effective way” and should be used “to identify the real issues in dispute...[and] to facilitate the quickest means of resolving a claim at the least expense”.

Reading these Rules together, Master Hanebury decided that the better option was to adjourn the Application “while the parties further ascertain the facts, and, if necessary, amend the pleadings”. It was ordered that the matter could be brought back before Master Hanebury within the next six months. If this was done, a determination would then be made as to whether there was a genuine issue for Trial. If this was not done within the specified timeframe, the Plaintiff’s Application would be allowed and it would be awarded Costs.