The appellants appealed a trial judgment regarding the wrongful distribution of corporate assets to themselves, to the detriment of the respondent shareholder.
The appellants argued the judgment should be set aside because the trial judge had also conducted the pre-trial conference, contrary to Rule 50.04.
The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the appellants had explicitly waived any objection to the trial judge presiding and suffered no prejudice.
The Court also upheld the trial judge's findings on the wrongful distribution of assets and the imposition of liability on the appellants under the oppression remedy provisions of the Business Corporations Act.
