Facts:
The Plaintiff sued both Defendants alleging a written contract between the Plaintiff and the First Defendant for the Plaintiff to act as a political consultant and campaign strategist for the Second Defendant in connection with the 2016 election in TCI, but such services to be paid for by the First Defendant.
The Second Defendant applied for the claim against him to be struck out, on the grounds that the Statement of Claim disclosed no reasonable cause of action, was scandalous, frivolous or vexatious or was otherwise an abuse of the process of the Court.
Held: Claim against second Defendant struck out.
Reasons:
No cause of action had been pleaded against the Second Defendant. A third party beneficiary of a contract is not a party to it and it cannot be enforced against him, (see Chitty on Contracts Vol 1 32nd Ed 1496 at 18-139, and VTB Capital plc v Nutritek International Corp [2013] UKSC 5, [2013] 2 A.C. 337).
It was conceded that the Statement of Claim did not disclose a reasonable cause of action, and under RSC Order 18 rule 19 the Court may only look at the pleadings. (See also Attorney General of the Duchy of Lancaster v London and North Western Railway Co [1892] 3 Ch 274 (CA)). In any event the written contract expressly stated that it constituted “the entire agreement between the parties”.
The instant suit against the Second Defendant disclosed no reasonable cause of action; was frivolous and vexatious and an abuse of the process of the Court.
The claim against the Second Defendant was struck out and his name struck out of the suit.
Costs if not agreed to be taxed.
