The Plaintiffs sought an order for certain applications within an earlier Summons of the Defendants to either be summarily dismissed under the power of the Court outlined in Williams & Humbert -v- W&H Trade Marks (Jersey) Ltd  1 AC 368 (“Williams & Humber”) or under its inherent jurisdiction. Alternatively, they sought an order that the Summons be stayed generally, pending the final determination of preliminary issues in the Court of Appeal. In the further alternative, they sought directions for the service of evidence with respect to the hearing of the Summons.
In the Summons, the Defendants had sought orders pursuant to RSC Order 18, Rule 19 or under the Court’s inherent jurisdiction that certain of the allegations made by the Plaintiff against certain of the Defendants should be struck out as they disclosed no reasonable cause of action. Hellman J summarised the test in Williams & Humbert, the leading authority on when the Court should refuse to permit a strike out application, as follows: that if the Court was satisfied that the strike out application would be likely to involve serious and prolonged argument, then it will generally not allow the application to proceed, unless it: (i) harbors doubts about the soundness of the pleading; and (ii) is satisfied that the application will either be decisive or appreciably simplify the eventual trial. However, even if these criteria have been met, in exceptional circumstances the Court may nonetheless allow the application to strike out to proceed.
To continue reading full articles in PDF format:
Kingate Global et al -v- Kingate Management et al  SC (Bda) 3 Com