The appellant appealed a trial judgment finding him personally liable to the respondent bank for conversion of funds.
The bank's cross-claim had been pleaded solely in conspiracy to defraud, which the trial judge dismissed.
However, the trial judge found the appellant liable on the unpleaded grounds of conversion and piercing the corporate veil, based on a presumptive indirect benefit as a shareholder.
The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, holding that it is fundamental to the litigation process that lawsuits be decided within the boundaries of the pleadings.
The Court also noted that piercing the corporate veil requires evidence of improper conduct akin to fraud or deceit, which was absent here.
