13 Nov 2025
The summons for renewal of extension of time to appeal is struck out and extension refused because the application is a duplicative relitigation of a matter already conclusively determined by the Court of First Instance and therefore constitutes an abuse of process; the interlocutory application could properly be determined on paper under Order 59 r 14A(1).
28 Aug 2025
The 2023 Action was struck out in its entirety because both the JVA claim and the 2006 CA claim constitute an abuse of process: the JVA claim is materially identical to a claim already in the 2018 Action and the 2006 CA claim raises matters that could and should have been pursued by amendment in the 2018 Action (Henderson v Henderson and Aldi Stores principles); accordingly there is nothing left of the 2023 Action and it must be dismissed; the court declined to decide the substantive question on the Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999 pending any application to amend the 2018 Action;…
21 Jul 2025
Because the plaintiffs are pursuing identical interim distribution relief in HCMP 247/2025 and the two other beneficiaries who have an interest are defendants in those proceedings, the court refused to determine further interim distribution in this action; the plaintiffs must pursue the relief in HCMP 247/2025. Accordingly the court made no order on the interim distribution application and no order on the defendant's adjournment summons, with costs reserved.
29 Apr 2024
The adjudicator's three reasons (overlap of issues/projects, respondent's defence amounting to set-off against the District Court Action, and identity of parties and witnesses) constituted good and sufficient reasons to transfer the Small Claims Actions to the District Court to avoid duplicative proceedings; the court, on review under s.27, confirmed the transfer and held the applicant's inability to afford counsel was irrelevant.
19 Nov 2012
The Action was struck out because it duplicates the monetary claim that was the subject of the 1993 Proceedings and therefore is an abuse of the court's process; the default judgment was obtained with material non-disclosure of earlier proceedings and, coupled with very substantial unexplained delay, the claims are stale and should not be permitted to continue.