The Appellants appealed the dismissal of an Application to Strike the Respondent’s Claim under Rule 3.68(2)(b). The Appellants submitted that the Chambers Judge overlooked binding authority and proceeded on a faulty view of a prior, Interlocutory Order.

The Court of Appeal highlighted that Rule 3.68 offers mechanisms to address “significant deficiencies” in claims. A pleading can only be struck under this Rule if it is clear and evident that it does not present a valid claim, and no evidence is permitted at this stage.

The panel rejected the Application, disagreeing with the Appellants' position. It stated that a motion to strike a pleading under Rule 3.68(2)(b) does not involve evaluating the merits of the claim. If the claim is adequately pleaded, it should not be dismissed, even if the plaintiff cannot currently prove the claim. The Court noted that the Appellants emphasized the importance of the foundational rules and the necessity to eliminate unmeritorious claims early on. However, they conflated the process of striking pleadings with their Application for Summary Dismissal, which remained unresolved.

The Court concluded that it would be against the purpose and intentions of the Rules (in particular, Rules 1.2(2)(a), and 1.2(3)(c) and (d)) to request the Chambers Judge to strike the Respondent’s Statement of Claim under Rule 3.68 based on limitation defences or arguments that had already been considered and dismissed.