Saulawa & Anor v Abeyratne & Anor [2018] EWHC 2463 (Ch) (25 July 2018)

Saulawa & Anor v Abeyratne & Anor [2018] EWHC 2463 (Ch) (25 July 2018)

Permission to bring fresh proceedings was refused because the matters had been finally settled by a valid agreement and consent order in 2015, and the current claim constituted a collateral attack on an arbitration award, amounting to an abuse of process. The claim was struck out accordingly.

Citation
[2018] EWHC 2463 (Ch)
Parties
Claimant: Captain Saulawa; Claimant: Aquashield; Defendant: Captain Abeyratne; Defendant: Prime Gulf Technical Services (UK) Limited
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
25 July 2018
Procedural Posture
Civil / Application Hearing (permission to Bring Proceedings and Strike Out)
Outcome
Claimants' application dismissed; claim struck out as abuse of process; costs awarded to defendants on indemnity basis.
Legal Topics
Abuse of Process, Discontinuance and Fresh Proceedings, Settlement Agreements, Costs Orders
Civil Procedure Contract Law Abuse of Process Discontinuance and Fresh Proceedings Settlement Agreements Costs Orders

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 5 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Captain Saulawa

Claimant

Aquashield

Claimant

Captain Abeyratne

Defendant

Prime Gulf Technical Services (UK) Limited

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil / Application Hearing (permission to Bring Proceedings and Strike Out)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether permission should be granted under CPR 38.7 to bring fresh proceedings after discontinuance of an earlier claim arising from the same facts
  2. 2 Whether the current claim is an abuse of process and should be struck out under CPR 3.4(2)

Ratio Decidendi

Permission to bring fresh proceedings was refused because the matters had been finally settled by a valid agreement and consent order in 2015, and the current claim constituted a collateral attack on an arbitration award, amounting to an abuse of process. The claim was struck out accordingly.

Court Disposition

Claimants' application dismissed; claim struck out as abuse of process; costs awarded to defendants on indemnity basis.

Orders

  • Claimants' application for permission to bring proceedings refused.
  • Claim struck out under CPR 3.4(2) as abuse of process.