The defendant, Defence Construction (1951) Ltd. (DCC), brought a motion to strike the plaintiff's (Sule Kisac) Amended Statement of Claim on the grounds that it disclosed no reasonable cause of action and was scandalous, vexatious, or an abuse of process.
DCC also sought to deny leave to amend or require the plaintiff to pay outstanding costs or post security for costs.
The court granted the motion to strike under rules 21.01(1)(b), 21.01(3)(d), and 25.11(b) and (c) of the Rules of Civil Procedure, finding the claim lacked material facts and constituted an abuse of process.
The plaintiff was granted leave to re-amend her statement of claim, but only on the condition that she first post security for costs in the amount of $10,000, citing her history of non-compliance with court orders and vexatious conduct.
The court also fixed costs payable by the plaintiff to the defendant at $8,000.
