The defendants appealed a master's decision dismissing their motion to discharge a certificate of pending litigation (CPL) obtained ex parte by the plaintiff purchaser.
The defendants argued the plaintiff failed to disclose a 'no registration' clause in the agreement of purchase and sale and that the master misapplied the test for a CPL.
The Superior Court dismissed the appeal, finding no error of law regarding material non-disclosure, as the clause did not unambiguously prohibit a CPL after the vendor terminated the agreement.
The court also found no palpable and overriding error in the master's assessment of the property's uniqueness and the balance of convenience.
