On a Commercial List motion, the plaintiff liquidator sought to strike from the responding defendants' statement of defence the allegation that the action had been commenced for an improper purpose.
The court held the motion was not barred by delay and that leave was not required under the Rules of Civil Procedure in the circumstances of Commercial List trial scheduling.
Applying the plain and obvious test for striking a defence, the court held that improper motive is not a defence, while an improper purpose defence can survive only if the improper purpose was the sole purpose of commencing the action.
The impugned plea was permitted to stand only on a narrow factual basis, and other evidence directed to improper motive or unrelated allegations was ruled inadmissible for trial.
