The grounds of appeal in this case are primarily based on the court's decision to refuse the plaintiff's application for discontinuance with liberty to file afresh, and the consequential striking out of the Writ of Summons and Statement of Claim without liberty to refile, along with the award of costs to the defendant. The appellant may argue that the court erred in its discretion by refusing the discontinuance, particularly on the basis that the plaintiff had sought to withdraw the claim at an earlier stage and with the condition of liberty to file anew. The appellant could contend that the court overlooked the fact that the plaintiff was not wholly dominus litis, as the defendant had already gained a significant advantage and was at an advanced stage in the proceedings, which should have justified allowing the discontinuance with costs. Additionally, the appellant might assert that the court failed to adequately consider the potential prejudice to the defendant and the principles guiding the exercise of judicial discretion in discontinuance applications, especially when the plaintiff's case was still at a preparatory stage but the defendant had already obtained a substantial advantage. The appeal may also challenge the court’s conclusion that allowing the withdrawal would unfairly disadvantage the defendant, emphasizing that the plaintiff’s right to discontinue should have been balanced against the defendant’s interests, and that costs should not have been awarded in a manner that effectively denied the plaintiff an opportunity to refile.