6 Jun 2018
Given the third party was called as a defence witness and disavowed an earlier statement that he owned the drugs, with the prosecution alleging fabrication, a lies direction was properly given; the appeal for certification raised no point of law of great and general importance and was dismissed.
22 Dec 2005
The court granted the extension of time to hear the substantive appeal but held that the master was correct to enter Order 14 judgment against the defendant because the alleged infringing watch plainly infringed the registered design and the defendant had no arguable defence; the infringement constituted an encumbrance under the Sale of Goods implied terms and went to the root of the contract entitling the plaintiff to relief; the 1st third party was correctly granted leave to defend because evidence showed the defendant knew of potentially infringing goods and s14(2) applied.