Case Overview:

• Claims:
  • Plaintiff: Alleges wrongful dismissal.
  • Defendant: Seeks to strike the plaintiff's claim as statute-barred under the Limitations Act, 2002.

Motions and Court Findings:

• Plaintiff's Motion: To strike the defendant's statement of defence as an abuse of process under Rule 25.11(c) of the Rules of Civil Procedure. The court found the motion unfounded, as a pleading cannot be struck solely based on the conduct of a party's lawyer unless the pleading itself is abusive.
• Defendant's Motion: Sought to dismiss the plaintiff's claim on the basis that it was statute-barred. The court agreed with the defendant but denied costs, noting that prompt communication from the defendant's lawyer could have avoided the motion.

Key Points:

• Communication Issues: The court highlighted non-responsiveness by Oakwood's lawyer, which contributed to procedural delays.
• Legal Representation Rules: The court clarified that a change of counsel within the same firm does not require a formal notice if the lawyer's representation remains consistent.
• Costs Decision: No costs were awarded despite the defendant’s success, emphasizing the avoidable nature of the motion had the defendant’s counsel been more communicative.
• Guidance for Self-Represented Litigants (SRLs): The court referred SRLs to several resources for legal understanding and noted the duty of legal professionals to assist SRLs appropriately.

Conclusion:
The plaintiff's motion was dismissed due to a lack of legal grounds for striking the defence. The court underscored the responsibility of lawyers to maintain professional and timely communication, especially with SRLs.

There were no damages or other monetary awards granted in this decision.