The Chancery Division allowed the appellant's application for his renewed application for permission to appeal from a decision which had dismissed the application to strike out certain parts of the respondents' statements of case in the proceedings. The appellant relied on the grounds that the judge (i) had misdirected himself as to the issue which he had to determine on the application; (ii) he erred in law in not striking out the overarching case; (iii) he erred in law in finding that office holders were not ordinary litigants for the purposes of pleading claims; and (iv) he erred in the exercise of his discretion in refusing to strike out the alternative date claims and/or the overarching case. The court held, among other things, that the judge had discretion when he dealt with the strike out application, but the exercise of that discretion was flawed.