What are the implications of a motion to dismiss a counterclaim brought by a plaintiff in contempt of court?

[17] After careful consideration of the above issue, the court finds that the proposed contested amendments to the counterclaim should be dismissed. Inherent to this conclusion is the acceptance of the plaintiff’s position that contempt is not a cause of action especially that which is alleged to have occurred nearly a decade after the initiation of the original claim. The court in reaching this conclusion also adopts the accepted judicial rationale that a “cause of action” is simply the proper outlining in pleadings and establishment of facts in a court of law which entitles a claimant to a remedy. Lord Diplock in Letang v. Cooper [1965] 1 Q.B. 232 gave a simplistic definition of the term: “…simply a factual situation the existence of which entitles one person to obtain from the court a remedy against another person.”