Striking out application
3 cases · January 2017 to July 2025
Case Volume by Year
1 17
2 25
2017–2025
Key Issues & Sub-Topics
Evidence proves the plaintiff’s claim is unsustainable — Onus shifts to the plaintiff to adduce evidence to show that his pleaded claim is not obviously unsustainable — Contract between companies for manpower services — Plaintiff a director of company that contracted to provide manpower services — Plaintiff sent by his company to provide services as Drilling Supervisor for the Defendant — No payment ever made by the Defendant to the Plaintiff — Defendant paid manpower company — No privity of contract between Plaintiff and Defendant — Plaintiff not an employee of the Defendant — In any event, claims for unjust unfair or unjust dismissal ought to be filed in Industrial Court — Plaintiff’s claim for unfair dismissal is obviously unsustainable 1 Order 18 Rule 19(1) of the Rules of Court 2012 — Impeachment of a final order for summary judgment — Whether the court order was obtained by fraud — Fresh evidence discovered — Whether there was any fraudulent concealment 1 whether the 1st Plaintiff has no authority to bring this action on its own behalf or on behalf of and in the name of the 2nd Plaintiff as this issue has been decided by two previous High Court cases and that res jusdicata applies — whether the solicitors Messrs Rathi MG Associates have no authority to act for the 2nd Plaintiff — Rules of Court 2012, Order 18 rule 19 (1); Order 14 rule 7(4); Contracts Act [Act 136], section 24. 1