The parties had been involved in serial disputes regarding the management of leasehold apartments. It was now objected that the current case was an abuse of process.
Held: The appeal against the stay succeeded. The new case had been flagged up to the defendants in the earlier proceedings and it was implicit in those proceedings that this would follow.
Arden, Neuberger, Richards LJJ
 EWCA Civ 297
England and Wales
Cited – Henderson v Henderson 20-Jul-1843
Abuse of Process and Re-litigation
The court set down the principles to be applied in abuse of process cases, where a matter was raised again which should have been dealt with in earlier proceedings.
Sir James Wigram VC said: ‘In trying this question I believe I state the rule . .
Appeal from – Walbrook Trustees (Jersey) Ltd and others v Fattal and others ChD 7-May-2008
Further case management in substantial case after additional pleadings. . .
See Also – Walbrook Trustee (Jersey) Ltd and others v Fattal and others CA 11-Mar-2008
Applications between consortium members as to management of apartment block.
Lawrence Collins LJ said: ‘ . . an appellate court should not interfere with case management decisions by a judge who has applied the correct principles and who has . .
Cited – Stuart v Goldberg and Linde (a firm) CA 17-Jan-2008
The claimant appealed against orders preventing him from suing his former solicitors in respect of heads of claim which the court said should have been included in earlier proceedings.
Held: When deciding whether a claim was an abuse of . .
Cited – Johnson v Gore Wood and Co HL 14-Dec-2000
Shareholder May Sue for Additional Personal Losses
A company brought a claim of negligence against its solicitors, and, after that claim was settled, the company’s owner brought a separate claim in respect of the same subject-matter.
Held: It need not be an abuse of the court for a shareholder . .
Cited – Aldi Stores Ltd v WSP Group Plc and others CA 28-Nov-2007
Aldi appealed against an order striking out as an abuse of process its claims against the defendant on a construction dispute. The defendant said the claims should have been brought as part of earlier proceedings.
Held: The appeal succeeded. . .
Cited – Kammins Ballrooms Co Limited v Zenith Investments (Torquay) Limited HL 1970
The tenant had served his section 26 notice under the 1954 Act, but then began the court proceedings before the minumum two month period had expired. The landlord did not take the point at first, and delivered an answer and negotiated compensation. . .
Cited – Kosmar Villa Holidays Plc v Trustees of Syndicate 1243 CA 29-Feb-2008
The court considered the difference between waiver by election and waiver by estoppel. Rix LJ said: ‘election is the exercise of a right to choose between inconsistent remedies’ and ‘generally requires knowledge of all the facts giving rise to the . .
These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 07 March 2021; Ref: scu.331094