1 
Judgment:

2 Coram: GOH JOON SENG J

3 GROUNDS OF DECISION

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 Particulars

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

29 It is only in plain and obvious cases that recourse should be

had to the summary process under this rule, per Lindley M.R. in

Hubbuck v Wilkinson < 1899 > 1 QB 86, p 91 (Mayor, etc, of

the City of London v Horner (1914) lll L.T. 512 C.A.) See also

Kemsley v Foot < 1951 > 2 K.B. 34; < 1951 > 1 All

E.R. 331, C.A. affirmed < 1952 > A.C. 345, H.L. The summary

procedure under this rule can only be adopted when it can be

clearly seen that a claim or answer is on the face of it

`obviously unsustainable' (Att. Gen of Duchy of Lancaster v L

& N.W. Ry. Co < 1892 > 3 Ch. 274 C.A.). It cannot be

exercised by a minute and protracted examination of the documents

and facts of the case, in order to see whether the plaintiff

really has a cause of action (Wenlock v Moloney < 1965 > 1

W.L.R. 1238; < 1965 > 2 All E.R. 871, (C.A.). ... ... The

powers conferred by this rule will only be exercised where the

case is clear beyond doubt (per Lindley L.J. in Kellaway v Bury

(1892) 66 L.T. 599, p 602). The Court must be satisfied that

there is no reasonable cause of action (as in South Hetton Coal

Co v Haswell, etc, Co < 1898 > 1 Ch 465; cf Dominion Steel,

etc, Co v Invernairn < 1927 > W.N. 278) or that the

proceedings are frivolous or vexatious (as in Lawrance v Norreys

(1890) 15 App Cas. 210; Wyatt v Palmer < 1899 > 2 QB 106;

Lea v Thursby (1904) 90 L.T. 65; Emerson v Grimsby Times, etc,

Co. (1926) 42 T.L.R. 238); or that the defences raised are not

arguable (Waters v Sunday Pictorial Newspapers < 1961 > 1

W.L.R. 967: <1961> 2 All E.R. 758, C.A.) ... ...

30 Where an application to strike out pleadings involves a

prolonged and serious argument, the Court should, as a rule

decline to proceed with the argument unless it not only harbours

doubts about the soundness of the pleading but, in addition, is

satisfied that striking out would obviate the necessity for a

trial or substantially reduce the burden of preparing for a

trial, and therefore where the Court is satisfied, even after

substantial argument both at first instance and on appeal, that

the defence does not disclose a reasonable ground of defence, it

will order it to be struck out < Williams & Humbert Ltd v

W & H Trade Marks (Jersey) Ltd < 1986 > A.C. 368;

<1986> 1 All E.R. 129 H.L. affirming < 1985 > 3

W.L.R. 501; <1985> 2 All E.R. 619, C.A.).

31 ... ...

32 On an application to strike out the statement of claim and to

dismiss the action, it is not permissible to try the action on

affidavits when the facts and issues are in dispute (Wenlock v

Moloney < 1965 > 1 W.L.R. 1238; < 1965 > 2 All E.R.

87 C.A.). It has been said that the Court will not permit a

plaintiff to be `driven from the judgment seat' except where the

cause of action is obviously bad and almost incontestably bad'

(per Fletcher Moulton LJ in Dyson v Att. Gen. < 1911 > 1 KB

410 p 419). ...

33 

34 Apart from all rules and Orders, ... the Court has an inherent

jurisdiction to stay all proceedings before it which are

obviously frivolous or vexatious or an abuse of its process (see

Reichel v Magrath (1889) 14 App Cas 665). In such cases, it will

strike out part of an indorsement of a writ (Huntley v Gaskell

(No. 1) < 1905 > 2 Ch 656); or set aside service of it

(Watkins v N. A. Land Co. (1904) 20 T.L.R. 534); or will stay or

dismiss before the hearing actions which it holds to be frivolous

or vexatious (Metropolitan Bank v Pooley (1885) 10 App Cas 210;

Lawrance v Norreys (1890) 15 App Cas 210 p 219; Haggard v

Pelicier Freres < 1892 > A.C. 68; The Manar < 1903 >

P 95, p.106; Boaler v Power < 1910 > 2 K.B. 229, C.A.;

Shackleton v Swift < 1913 > 2 K.B. 304; Norman v Mathews

(1916) 85 L.J.K.B. 859; ...

35 

36 The power to stay or dismiss an action under the inherent

jurisdiction of the Court on the ground that it is obviously

frivolous or vexatious is discretionary, just as it is under O.18

r.19 (Gleeson v J Wippell & Co Ltd < 1977 > 1 WLR 510;

< 1977 > 3 All ER 54, following Carl-Zeiss Stiftung v

Rayner & Keeler Ltd (No 3) < 1970 > Ch 506;

<1969> 3 All ER 897. ... ... The jurisdiction will not be

exercised except with great circumspection and unless it is

perfectly clear that the plea cannot succeed (see Lawrance v Lord

Norreys (1890) 15 App Cas 210; Goodson v Grierson < 1908 >

1 KB 766; El Dev Co v Att. Gen. for Ontario < 1919 > A.C.

687).

37