JUDGMENT

Introduction

[1] The primary issue in these appeals is whether the Appellants have a right to appeal the dismissals of their respective interlocutory applications to strike out pleadings in view of the recent amendments to s 68 of the Courts of Judicature Act 1964, more particularly s 68(1)(f) CJA. Section 68(1)(f) CJA, as amended by s 8 of the Courts of Judicature (Amendment) Act 2022, which states as follows:

"Section 68. CJA Non-appealable matters

(1) No appeal shall be brought to the Court of Appeal in any of the following cases:

(e) where a High Court dismissed any application for a summary judgment;

(f) where a High Court dismissed any application to strike out any writ or pleading and

(g) where a High Court allowed any application to set aside a judgment in default."

[2] The question that arises for consideration for this court is the effect of s 68(1)(f) CJA: is the section to be read literally and in a grammarian fashion, or is it to be construed holistically and purposively in line with the object and purpose of the entirety of the CJA in relation to civil appeals?

[3] If the section is read literally, it would follow from subparagraph (f) that all decisions of the High Court dismissing applications to strike out a writ or pleading would be unappealable. However, an approach in line with s 17A of the Interpretation Acts 1948 and 1967 may give rise to a different construction.

[4] Consider, for example, a situation where a derivative action is filed, but the threshold requirements are not met. This is a preliminary point of law that does not genuinely require the adducing of further oral evidence to determine whether or not the action is validly instituted under the law. If the High Court does not strike out the derivative action for failure to comply with threshold matters, it would follow that the matter would have to go through a full trial prior to adjudication on a point of law that could have been determined at the outset.