The appellants sued the respondent consulting firms for failing to deliver an approved environmental Risk Assessment on time.
After discovery, the appellants moved to add an individual employee of the respondents as a necessary defendant, which the Master refused.
The appellants appealed the Master's decision and brought a motion to introduce fresh evidence.
The Divisional Court dismissed the motion to introduce fresh evidence, finding it could have been obtained prior to the hearing with reasonable diligence and would not be conclusive.
The court also dismissed the appeal, holding that the Master made no palpable and overriding error in concluding the individual was not a necessary party, as the corporate respondents were fully insured and capable of responding to the claims.
