Party cannot remain as party to proceedings on the basis of a potential future claim

Appeal against order of High Court - third defendant / respondent succeeded in having proceedings struck out against him - also succeeded in having references to him deleted from plenary summons and statement of claim - proceedings relate to purchase and sale of land - other litigation which third defendant not part of - plaintiff's appeal on basis third defendant properly joined proceedings - that trust existed between plaintiff and first/second defendants - that third defendant aware of existence and so should have been aware of plaintiffs entitlement to land - RSC O.19, r.28 - jurisdiction grounding this strike out application - pleadings disclose no cause of action - inherent jurisdiction - onus on third defendant - consideration of High Court judgment - High Court found case at its height was allegation that third defendant on becoming aware of the appellants’ possible interest in the lands - acted unlawfully by entering into an agreement appellant's interest in land - appellant's submission on basis failure of the High Court to consider and apply the doctrine of knowing receipt in the context of third defendant being a constructive trustee - whether third defendant had actual or constructive notice of the trust - Court of Appeal notes further issue not raised before HC - Court of Appeal endorses High Courts findings - court finds third defendant can't remain as a party in the event some future claim arises in the future - appeal dismissed - orders of High Court affirmed.