The Plaintiff appealed an Order denying his Application to strike the Statement of Defence and to enter Judgment against the Defendant. The Plaintiff sought a virtual hearing of the Appeal, which was denied. The Plaintiff indicated on his Notice of Appeal that the matter could be dealt with in writing. As a result, the Appeal was considered in writing, and without oral argument, pursuant to Rule 14.32(2).

The Plaintiff sought to strike the Statement of Defence as disclosing no reasonable defence, and that the Statement of Defence was frivolous, irrelevant, improper, and constituted an abuse of process. The Application to strike was dismissed and the lower Court had ordered the Plaintiff to provide Security for Costs which was previously ordered. The Chambers Judge referred to the decision for Security for Costs, as it suggested that there was some merit to the Statement of Defence. He also noted that there were factual and legal matters not suitable for an Application to strike.

On Appeal, the Plaintiff argued that the Chambers Judge erred in relying on the Security for Costs Decision to determine whether there was merit to the defence. The Court of Appeal noted that Decision not to strike a Statement of Defence is discretionary and entitled to deference. There was no error identified that would warrant appellate intervention. Therefore, the Appeal was dismissed.