The Court held that the defendant failed to discharge its onus of establishing that the plaintiff's statement of claim was filed as an abuse of process for the predominant purpose of obtaining evidence by compulsory process. The Court found it could not infer from a solicitor's earlier affidavits in a failed preliminary discovery application that she did not genuinely hold the belief certified under the Legal Profession Uniform Law when filing the statement of claim seventeen days later, and that alleging a legal practitioner gave a false certificate is a serious matter requiring a proper factual basis. The subpoena challenges also failed as they depended on the same unestablished premise of improper purpose.
The full text is available to signed-in members.