Court acted fairly and proportionately in striking out proceedings

Court of appeal – appeal of order striking out application to amend pleadings and to add a third party – alleged that the defendants trespassed on his property - background and procedural history - motion to amend his pleadings - motion to strike out the proceedings - hearing of the motions - adjournment application – not in attendance - judgment of the High Court – appeal - application to adduce further evidence - jurisdiction to strike out proceedings - ‘bound to fail’ jurisprudence - pleadings are fundamentally defective - the plaintiff’s pleadings (such as they are) on their face do not constitute a reasonable cause of action in trespass, defamation or fraud – whether an amendment could save the proceedings - there would have to be clarity as to the exact nature of the amendments being proposed - clarity is not available - not for this Court to try and identify amendments that might conceivably save the proceedings as they stand in circumstances where no amendments have been put before the Court - failure to engage with the defendants’ complaint that he has failed to adequately particularise the allegations of defamation, trespass and fraud - claim that the debt has been discharged -the Judge did not err in striking out those claims – advancing a new cause of action - Judge properly addressed the defendants’ application to strike out the plaintiff’s statement of claim – appeal dismissed