12 Oct 2022
The appeal was dismissed because the High Court proceeding duplicated an existing District Court proceeding on the same facts and issues; commencing a parallel High Court action after failing to obtain summary judgment in the District Court constituted a plain abuse of process and justified striking out under r 5.35B.
8 May 2018
Strike out dismissed: court found defendant did not meet the heavy onus to show the proceeding was an abuse of process despite concerns about delay, inconsistent prior valuations and Mr Henderson's conduct; however, security for costs was ordered because plaintiff is impecunious, the claim has limited quantum relative to anticipated interlocutory expense, and it is just to protect the defendant. The proceeding is stayed until further ordered security is provided and directions issued on quantum.
10 Jul 2013
The earlier tinnitus review focused on whether chiropractic manipulation could cause tinnitus; a definitive finding that there was no physical injury was not an essential step in the logic of that decision and therefore did not give rise to issue estoppel. The Henderson rule did not bar a second claim because the legislation and practice permit subsequent claims where later symptoms suggest a different injury. The earlier review decision is quashed and a new review on the neck injury claim is required.
7 Dec 2010
The High Court held the Family Court was correct to treat the RSU issues as res judicata: the 2007 and 2008 awards were post‑separation and therefore not relationship property, and the appellant should have raised valuation and vesting issues at the original hearing or on appeal; the attempt to reopen the matters was inappropriate and the appeal is dismissed.