David-Wynn Miller's concepts in action in a Canadian decision from BC in 2001:
National Leasing v. Top West Ventures et al, 2001 BCSC 111 (CanLII)
Gold in the final paragraph:
Quote:
|
[9] If Mr. Shandler genuinely believes he has a defence against the plaintiff’s claim, I would respectfully suggest that, without sacrificing his friendship with Mr. Naudi, he might seek advice from someone whose theories of pleadings and grammar are rather more attuned to traditional usage. It is certainly thought-provoking to consider the “de” in “defendant” as a negation of a root word “fendant”, and “plaintiff” as a verb. (If the OED is watching, Mr. Naudi said it first, not I.) But the judges and masters of the Supreme Court of British Columbia are required to be somewhat conservative, if not downright pedantic, when it comes to pleadings. Our scribble/scribble-procedures are not inflexible, but they do require that counterclaims disclose a comprehensible, arguable cause of action, and I am afraid that this one does not.
|
