Applications to strike out portions of a claim should not be made as a matter of course

Application to strike out part of plaintiff’s claim – abuse of process – Order 19 Rule 27 of the Superior Courts – plenary summons seeks damages for breach of contract – s. 117 Data Protection Act 2018 - statement of claim is not in compliance with the Rules and in particular O.19, r.3 which provides that every pleading shall contain, and shall only contain, a statement in a summary form of the material facts on which the party pleading relies for his claim, but not the evidence by which they are to be proved – statement of claim was 85 pages in length and 101 pages in the forms of Annexes – it is open to me to dismiss part of the claim without dismissing it all - inherent jurisdiction of the court should only be exercised in relation to part of the proceedings in very rare and clear cases - grant the application to strike out paragraphs - I am not convinced that r. 27 applies - far as the rules are concerned, this is a matter for O. 19, r. 28, which is not available to the defendant for the purposes of this application as it does not submit that the statement of claim as a whole fails to disclose any cause of action or shows that the entire action is frivolous or vexatious – inherent jurisdiction of the court - , I think that removing this very limited section of the statement of claim will serve a purpose in removing from the defendant the burden of a claim which it should not have to deal with - However, by removing the relief, this will have the consequence that any attempt to enforce the Order cannot be entertained and the defendant will not have to deal with it at all – order striking out certain paragraphs granted.