The appellants appealed a Small Claims Court judgment awarding the respondent $10,000 following the termination of a ghostwriting contract.
The appellants argued the Deputy Judge erred in contractual interpretation, failed to consider the manuscript as crucial evidence, misapplied quantum meruit and unjust enrichment, and denied procedural fairness by relying on an unpleaded doctrine.
The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding that the Deputy Judge's contractual interpretation and factual findings were supported by the evidence and entitled to deference.
The court also held that the application of quantum meruit was procedurally fair in the Small Claims Court context, as the factual matrix was fully explored at trial.
