Hossain & Ors v Sonali Bank & Anor

Hossain & Ors v Sonali Bank & Anor

The application was refused because the claimants' new claim was an abuse of process. The issue of the proper calculation of pensionable pay was, or could have been, litigated in the original employment tribunal proceedings. The claimants had the opportunity to amend their pleadings to raise the broader claim but deliberately chose not to do so. Permitting the new claim would undermine the finality of litigation and the public interest in preventing relitigation of matters that could have been resolved earlier.

Parties
Appellant: Mr Hossain; Appellant: Mrs N Alam; Appellant: Mrs A Islam; Respondent: Sonali Bank
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
03 October 2008
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Application for Permission to Appeal (second Appeal) From High Court to Court of Appeal
Outcome
Application for permission to appeal refused
Legal Topics
Abuse of Process, Res Judicata, Employment Law, Costs
Civil Procedure Abuse of Process Res Judicata Employment Law Costs

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 4 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Mr Hossain

Appellant

Mrs N Alam

Appellant

Mrs A Islam

Appellant

Sonali Bank

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Application for Permission to Appeal (second Appeal) From High Court to Court of Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the new High Court claim by Mr Hossain and others was an abuse of process under the Henderson v Henderson and Johnson v Gore Wood principles
  2. 2 Whether the claimants were prevented from raising the broader claim in the original employment tribunal proceedings
  3. 3 Whether the merits of the new claim justified allowing it to proceed despite prior litigation

Ratio Decidendi

The application was refused because the claimants' new claim was an abuse of process. The issue of the proper calculation of pensionable pay was, or could have been, litigated in the original employment tribunal proceedings. The claimants had the opportunity to amend their pleadings to raise the broader claim but deliberately chose not to do so. Permitting the new claim would undermine the finality of litigation and the public interest in preventing relitigation of matters that could have been resolved earlier.

Court Disposition

Application for permission to appeal refused

Orders

  • Respondents awarded costs assessed in the sum of £15,000 against the three named appellants (Mr Hossain, Mrs N Alam, Mrs A Islam)