Indrek Uukkivi

The respondent sold goods to 'Promised Land' and sued the appellant numbered company for unpaid invoices.

The trial judge granted judgment for the respondent.

The appellant appealed, arguing the trial judge decided the case on an unpleaded basis and improperly pierced the corporate veil, as the goods were allegedly purchased by a related entity, Promised Land Inc. The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the pleadings squarely raised the issue of the proper defendant, and the appellant and its related entity dealt interchangeably with the respondent, making both proper defendants.

The appellants challenged a trial judgment rejecting a claimed prescriptive easement over a commercially developed parcel of land.

The Court of Appeal held the use of the alleged easement was permissive, not adverse, because the relevant knowledge and consent resided in the same individual personally and as the directing mind of the corporate owner during the relevant period.

The court further held no easement could arise by permission because any such permission ended when ownership of one of the properties changed in 1983.

The appeal was dismissed with costs.