The appellant appealed a Small Claims Court decision dismissing its claim for a 70% share of profits from a gaming table supply contract.
The Divisional Court upheld the trial judge's finding that the agreement was for 30% of net profits, noting no palpable and overriding error in the credibility assessments.
However, the court allowed the appeal in part to correct a mathematical error conceded by the respondent, as the trial judge failed to account for payments already made.
The appellant was penalized in costs for making unfounded allegations of fraud.
