The moving defendants sought to strike the statement of claim against them under Rule 21.01(1)(b) in an action arising from unpaid engineering invoices relating to a power generation project.
The plaintiff advanced unjust enrichment against parties that had contracted with an intermediary defendant, but the court held the pleaded contracts constituted valid juristic reasons for the alleged enrichment.
The court rejected the submission that breach of contract would make the enrichment manifestly unjust for pleading purposes and found no basis to add a new allegation of contractual invalidity.
The claim against the moving defendants was struck without leave to amend, with partial indemnity costs.
