The claimant sought to have struck out as abuse of process parts of the defence, saying that the factual issues raised had already been resolved in arbitration proceedings, but as against a different oarty. The defendant replied that the arbitration had been confidential to the parties to it.
Held: The application was refused.
Independently of the res judicata doctrine, it can be an abuse of process for a party to later proceedings to seek to relitigate issues determined in previous proceedings: ‘It can, in my view, be an abuse of process for a party which was successful overall in earlier proceedings to seek to relitigate an issue on which it was unsuccessful. Likewise, whilst it may be decisive under the doctrine of res judicata to identify whether or not a particular finding was obiter, there is no reason to take such a restrictive view in the case of abuse of process. The focus in the latter case is not so much on the binding nature of the finding, but upon the undesirability of having the same matter adjudicated upon again where it would be manifestly unfair to do so, or would bring the administration of justice into disrepute.’ However, in this case, there were significant doubts as to the effect of the order sought by Petrom as regards the issues that would, and would not, remain live at trial.
 EWHC 242 (Comm)
Limitation Act 1980 32
England and Wales
Cited – The Secretary of State for Trade and Industry v Bairstow CA 11-Mar-2003
The Secretary of State attempted, in the course of director’s disqualification proceedings, to rely upon findings made against Mr Bairstow in an earlier wrongful dismissal action to which he had been a party but the Secretary of State not. The . .
Cited – Gleeson v J Wippell and Co Ltd ChD 1977
The court considered the circumstances giving rise to a plea of res judicata, and proposed a test of privity in cases which did not fall into any recognised category. ‘Second, it seems to me that the sub-stratum of the doctrine is that a man ought . .
Cited – Arts and Antiques Ltd v Richards and Others ComC 5-Nov-2013
The court was asked whether the findings of a private arbitration could be relied upon as between other parties in an abuse of process argument. . .
Cited – Michael Wilson and Partners Ltd v Sinclair and Others ComC 21-Sep-2012
The claimant company alleged that the defendants had variously received assests (shares and cash) acquired by a former partner in the claimant company and held on his behalf, in breach of his obligations to the caimant partnership. The defendants . .
Cited – North West Water Ltd v Binnie and Partners 1990
In relation to court proceedings, it can be an abuse of process for a defendant to seek to reopen issues decided against it as defendant in previous court proceedings. . .
Cited – Sun Life Assurance Company of Canada and others v The Lincoln National Life Insurance Co CA 10-Dec-2004
The court considered the effect of findings in one arbitration on a subsequent arbitration. The arguments being directed to res judicata.
Held: Mance LJ pointed to important differences between litigation and arbitration as a consensual . .
Cited – Simms v Conlon and Another CA 20-Dec-2006
Solicitors within a practice sued each other, and one wished to plead the fact of a finding of professional misconduct.
Held: The defendant’s appeal succeeded. It was not an abuse for the appellant to continue to assert his innocence, and the . .
Cited – Hunter v Chief Constable of the West Midlands Police HL 19-Nov-1981
No collateral attack on Jury findigs.
An attempt was made to open up in a civil action, allegations of assaults by the police prior to the making of confessions which had been disposed of in a voir dire in the course of a criminal trial. The plaintiffs had imprisoned having spent many . .
Cited – Calyon v Michailaidis and Others PC 15-Jul-2009
(Gibraltar) The test for applying an abuse of process argument is an exacting one. . .
See Also – OMV Petrom Sa v Glencore International Ag ComC 13-Mar-2015
Appeal from – OMV Petrom Sa v Glencore International Ag CA 21-Jul-2016
‘This case concerns the measure of damages for deceit.’ . .
Appeal from – OMV Petrom Sa v Glencore International Ag CA 27-Mar-2017
This appeal raises a straightforward but important point concerning the interest that the court may award when a claimant’s CPR Part 36 offer is rejected, but the claimant achieves a greater award at trial.
Sir Geoffrey Vos C said: ‘The parties . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Arbitration, Contract, Litigation Practice
Updated: 01 November 2021; Ref: scu.521089