The appellant dentist appealed an order striking his statement of claim against counsel retained by the professional regulator in disciplinary proceedings.
The Court of Appeal majority held that novelty was not a basis to strike a malicious prosecution claim at the pleading stage and that the pleaded civil conspiracy claim should also stand.
Although the pleadings were poorly drafted, the majority concluded the matter should proceed to trial, leaving the trial judge to assess the various claims on the evidence.
The appeal was allowed, the motion judge's order was set aside, and the motion to strike was dismissed with costs to the appellant here and below.
