The appellant appealed a Small Claims Court decision dismissing his claim for damages against the respondent for allegedly improper installation of a propane system in his taxi, which he claimed caused the engine to overheat and seize.
The trial judge found insufficient evidence, specifically lacking expert testimony, to establish a causal link between the respondent's work and the engine failure.
On appeal, the appellant also moved to introduce fresh evidence.
The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding no palpable and overriding error in the trial judge's factual findings.
The motion to adduce fresh evidence was also dismissed because it could have been discovered with due diligence and did not address the core issue of causation.
