The bank had obtained judgment against the defendant, but had failed to act upon it, and the judgment became unenforceable. It then began later proceedings on the original debt (still within the applicable limitation period). The defendant said this was an abuse of process.
Held: The decision in Ridgeway after close of oral argument on the original trial did not affect the question on whether new proceedings amounted to an abuse of process. It was not an abuse to commence proceedings based upon an earlier judgment. Though the second set of proceedings might be unnecessary, they were not an abuse.
Lord Justice Mummery Lord Justice Scott Baker
 EWCA Civ 988, Times 04-Aug-2004
Limitation Act 1980 24
England and Wales
Cited – E D and F Man (Sugar) Ltd v Haryanto ChD 24-Nov-1995
Enforcement by judgment on co-ordinate jurisdiction judgment is discretionary: ‘ . . having regard to the decision in Re A Debtor  Ch 310 that s 24(1) of the 1980 Act bars after six years rights of action including proceedings in the form of . .
Cited – ED and F Man (Sugar) v Haryanto CA 17-Jul-1996
An action may be brought on a judgment to enforce it, if it is still within the relevant limitation period: ‘Suing on a judgment, at all events for the first time, cannot be said to defeat legislative policy. That is plain from the very language of . .
Cited – Re A Debtor 1977
Corporate insolvency proceedings based on a statutory demand for monies due under a previous judgment are an ‘action on a judgment’ within s 24 rather than a method of enforcing or executing the judgment. They are barred by s 24 if brought more than . .
Cited – Ridgeway Motors (Isleworth) Ltd v Alts Ltd CA 10-Feb-2005
The company appelaed a refusal of the judge to strike out a winding up petition. They said the petition was based upon a judgment which was now time barred. The petitioner replied that such a petition was not an action under the section.
Held: . .
These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 03 May 2021; Ref: scu.199479