Paragraph 6 as it now stands is objectionable as it raises irrelevant matters and is therefore embarrassing within the meaning of Rule 173. See Miller v. Draper, [1942] O.W.N. 650. As the Assistant Master noted in that case payment into court is not a defence, assuming there has been no tender, but rather an offer to compromise. I would refuse the defendant’s motion for those reasons alone but I conclude that it would be unwise to limit myself to those rulings. The operation of our rules must be addressed.
"The most advanced legal research software ever built."
The above passage should not be considered legal advice. Reliable answers to complex legal questions require comprehensive research memos. To learn more visit www.alexi.com.