27 Jun 2024
Paragraphs 1–11 of the Defence and Counterclaim are mere bare denials that do not disclose any reasonable defence on their face; accordingly they are struck out under Order 18 r.19(1)(a) of the Rules with costs to the plaintiff.
11 Jan 2024
The Deeds of Assignment, read by their four corners (not displaced by the factual matrix), constitute absolute and unconditional assignments enabling the plaintiff to enforce its rights and auction the properties on default; the defendants' estoppel plea lacked particulars and pleaded reliance and thus disclosed no reasonable cause; accordingly the counterclaim was frivolous/vexatious or an abuse of process and was struck out.
16 Jan 2023
The plaintiff’s pleadings disclosed no triable cause of action because the defendant validly exercised contractual rights to review and recall facilities under the loan terms, the plaintiff failed to satisfy express pre-conditions and covenants, and voluntarily refinanced (estopping the plaintiff); legitimate expectation did not arise on these facts; therefore the claim was properly struck out under Order 18 r.19.
15 Jan 2021
On the pleadings and available documents there was sufficient evidence of issues fit for trial, including signs of Defendant involvement and a genuine dispute of fact on privity and on whether services were merely design works or prohibited architectural consultancy; illegality under the Architects Act could not be determined summarily. Therefore the strike out application failed and must be dismissed so matters proceed to full trial.
2 Dec 2020
The application to strike out was dismissed because the counterclaim raised factual and legal issues that were not plain and obvious on the face of the pleadings, the plaintiff failed to discharge the evidential burden (termination letters not exhibited and inconsistent positions on maturity/default), and questions of causation, validity of notices and calculation of shortfall require trial evidence.