JUDGMENT

Abdul Malik Ishak J:

On 14 September 1996 the Senior Assistant Registrar ('SAR') agreed with the preliminary objection advanced by the plaintiff and struck out encl. 49 with liberty to file afresh. On the same date, the SAR refused to accede to the preliminary objection of the second defendant as they were not relevant then. Being aggrieved the second defendant filed an appeal to the Judge in chambers dated 16 September 1996 as reflected in encl. 54.

Enclosure 49 was an application by the second defendant to strike out the writ and the statement of claim of the plaintiff using cumulatively O. 18 r. 19(1)(a), (b), (c) and/or (d) of the Rules of the High Court 1980 ('RHC'). This provoked the displeasure of the plaintiff who then raised a preliminary objection to the following effect. That O. 18 r. 19(1)(a), (b), (c) and/or (d) of the RHC cannot be invoked cumulatively. That reliance under O. 18 r. 19(1)(a) of the RHC must necessarily mean that no evidence shall be admissible and the Court must consider only the pleadings for the purpose of determining whether the statement of claim disclosed no reasonable cause of action. For ease of reference O. 18 r. 19 of the RHC is now