Overview:

• Appeal from a Supreme Court order granting the respondent $600,000 on a debt claim.
• Key issue: Whether the $600,000 advanced was a loan or an equity investment.

Trial Court Decision:

• Determined the money was a loan, supported by a Loan Agreement and Promissory Note.
• Favored the respondent’s credibility.

Appeal Claims:

1. Insufficient reasons for credibility findings.
2. Improper reliance on certain testimonies.
3. Misjudgment based on demeanor.
4. Ignoring the totality of circumstances.

Appeal Court Findings:

• Credibility and Factual Findings: Deference to the trial judge's credibility findings unless palpable and overriding error is shown.
• Judgment: Appeal dismissed; trial judge’s findings upheld.

Key Points:

1. Characterization of Advance: Respondent claimed the money was a loan; appellant argued it was an equity investment.
2. Evidence: Respondent’s version supported by lawyer’s (Mr. Zokol) notes and Mr. Chandradas’ testimony, which mentioned guarantees by the appellant.
3. Appellant's Position: Claimed documents were shams to avoid taxes, but admitted to knowing their contents.

Conclusion:

• Appeal Dismissed: No errors in the trial judge’s credibility and factual findings. The decision that the advance was a loan stands.

The appellant's grounds of appeal were unsubstantiated, and the trial court’s decision was affirmed.