ABSTRACT

Rule 26.3 [Rule 26.2 (Trinidad & Tobago)] provides that the court may strike out the whole or part of a statement of case if it appears to the court that:

(a) there has been a failure to comply with a rule or practice direction or an order given by the court in the proceedings;

(b) the statement of case or the part to be struck out is an abuse of the process of the court or is likely to obstruct the just disposal of the proceedings;

(c) the statement of case or the part to be struck out discloses no reasonable grounds for bringing or defending a claim; or

(d) the statement of case or the part to be struck out is prolix or does not comply with Pts 8 or 10 (rules concerning claim and defence respectively).

The traditional approach to striking out, as propounded by Lord Templeman in Williams & Humbert Ltd v W & H Trade Marks (Jersey) Ltd,1 is that striking out is appropriate only in plain and obvious cases, and those cases which require prolonged and serious argument are unsuitable for striking out. This approach has been confirmed in a post-CPR House of Lords case, Three Rivers District Council v Bank of England (No 3).2 Further, the CPR do not apply to interim applications, which may be struck out only in the court’s inherent jurisdiction.3