The Appellants sued the Respondent, their former lawyer, in 2019 and later sought to have the Respondent found in Contempt of Court for filing a Summary Dismissal Application under Rule 7.3. The Appellants argued that the Summary Dismissal Application was contemptuous, asserting it duplicated a prior unsuccessful Application for Dismissal under Rule 4.33, as both sought the same ultimate outcome.

The Chambers Justice determined that the Summary Dismissal Application did not constitute Contempt, and the Court found no reviewable error in this Decision. The Court noted that the Order dismissing the Rule 4.33 Application did not explicitly or implicitly prevent the Respondent from later filing for Summary Dismissal on the merits. The Court emphasized that the two Applications addressed distinct legal issues, and that filing the Summary Dismissal Application was not an abuse of process.

The Appellants also argued that the Costs Order granted by the Chambers Justice was unwarranted. However, the Court upheld the award, affirming that the successful party was entitled to Costs, and noting that the award was appropriate. The Court further observed that the amount could have been higher given the baseless allegations of contempt.

Ultimately, the Court dismissed the Appeal and awarded the Respondent Costs of the Appeal under Rule 14.88.