Opinion ID: 1435833
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Authority to Refer Case to Master

Text: There can be no doubt about the Court of Chancery's general authority to appoint masters. Delaware's equity court traces its jurisdiction and powers to the High Court of Chancery in Great Britain at the time of the American Revolution. [2] Under English chancery court practice, even before the Revolution, masters were appointed by the court and given authority to examine witnesses and prepare reports of their findings in the cause referred to them. [3] In addition to its inherent authority, the Court of Chancery has express statutory power to refer matters to masters. The Court may appoint a master in any pending case and it may promulgate rules governing the master's duties and regulating the practice in all particulars.... [4] Court of Chancery Rules 135-147 detail the powers and duties of the master as well as the procedures governing the presentation of evidence and the manner in which the parties may object to the master's report. Although it is clear that the Court may appoint masters, the permissible scope of the master's assignment is not expressly defined. We do not rely on early English practice for the answer, as there appears to be a divergence of views. [5] Rather, we look to the plain language of the statute that codifies the Court's inherent power  § 372. The statute authorizes the Court of Chancery to appoint a master in any cause.... [6] Since there is no express or implied limitation on the scope of the appointment, we assume that the legislature intended none. [7] Accordingly, we conclude that a judge of the Court of Chancery may appoint a master to hear and evaluate all of the claims presented in an entire case unless otherwise provided by statute or rule of court.