3 Jun 1983
COTTEEN INVESTMENTS LTD v. TOMASES INVESTMENTS LTD AND ANOTHER
- Citation
- COTTEEN INVESTMENTS LTD v. TOMASES INVESTMENTS LTD AND ANOTHER
- Court
- Court of Appeal
- Case number
- CACV37/1983
Although the Master’s initial O.86 application was misconceived and the judge in chambers should have called counsel for the plaintiff on the appeal, the O.14 summons was not an abuse of process nor prejudicial by short notice; on the merits the guarantee covered liability for the purchaser's default (including damages) and there was no arguable defence by the 2nd Defendant, so the appeal is dismissed and judgment for the plaintiff is maintained.