W.D. World Travel Inc. v. Lock et al

W.D. World Travel Inc. v. Lock et al

Because British Columbia law remained uncertain on whether the overt act required for abuse of process must be extrinsic to the litigation, the court would not decide that issue on a Rule 19(24) strike application; however the amended counterclaim lacked sufficient particulars regarding alleged subsequent threats...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
2006 BCSC 114
Parties
Plaintiff (defendant by Counterclaim): W.D. World Travel Ltd.; Defendant (plaintiff by Counterclaim): Stephen Lock; Defendant (plaintiff by Counterclaim): Jackie Grieve; Defendant (plaintiff by Counterclaim): Tripzter Travel Inc.
Court
Supreme Court of British Columbia
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
20 January 2006
Procedural Posture
Civil Commercial/tort Dispute Arising From Employee Departures and Related Litigation / Pre Trial Motion to Strike Counterclaim Under Rule 19(24) (heard by Master)
Outcome
Plaintiff's application to strike the counterclaim dismissed
Legal Topics
Abuse of Process, Misuse of Confidential Information, Breach of Duty of Confidentiality, Inducing Breach of Contract, Intentional Interference With Contractual Relations, Defamation, Strike Pleadings, Particulars
Source Language
english
Civil Procedure Tort Employment Law Commercial Law Abuse of Process Misuse of Confidential Information Breach of Duty of Confidentiality Inducing Breach of Contract +4 more

Source-derived case record

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 7 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

W.D. World Travel Ltd.

Plaintiff (defendant by Counterclaim)

Stephen Lock

Defendant (plaintiff by Counterclaim)

Jackie Grieve

Defendant (plaintiff by Counterclaim)

Tripzter Travel Inc.

Defendant (plaintiff by Counterclaim)

Procedural Posture

Civil Commercial/tort Dispute Arising From Employee Departures and Related Litigation / Pre Trial Motion to Strike Counterclaim Under Rule 19(24) (heard by Master)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the counterclaim adequately pleads the tort of abuse of process
  2. 2 Whether an overt act or threat extrinsic to the litigation is an essential element of abuse of process in British Columbia
  3. 3 Whether the earlier ruling was res judicata

Ratio Decidendi

Because British Columbia law remained uncertain on whether the overt act required for abuse of process must be extrinsic to the litigation, the court would not decide that issue on a Rule 19(24) strike application; however the amended counterclaim lacked sufficient particulars regarding alleged subsequent threats (paragraph 11) and the plaintiff's application to strike was dismissed subject to an order to provide particulars and timelines.

Court Disposition

Plaintiff's application to strike the counterclaim dismissed

Orders

  • Plaintiff by counterclaim must give particulars of paragraph 11 of the Amended Counterclaim within 14 days
  • Defendant must file its Reply and Defence to Counterclaim within 14 days of receipt of the particulars