Rogers & Norton News
Our Litigation Team has had another resounding success. Acting for a National Glazing company, our team applied to strike out the claim on the basis that the matter had already been determined by the County Court and Court of Appeal in favour of our client and notwithstanding new matters had been alleged.
Peter Hastings comments “Our application was to strike out the Claimant’s claim on the basis that it pleaded no cause of action; alternatively that it was an abuse of process, being an attempt to re-open concluded litigation; and for a limited civil restraint order. To bring a claim against another party, a claimant must have a “cause of action”, that is, he must be able to state a set of facts sufficient to justify a right to sue the other party for money, goods, etc. The claim form should identify the tort, breach of contract or other civil wrong complained of.”
As a general rule a party should not be allowed to litigate issues which have already been decided by a court of competent jurisdiction. In Virgin Atlantic Airways Ltd v Zodiac Seats UK Ltd  UKSC 46, the Court held:-
a) Issue estoppel bars the raising of points which were raised unsuccessfully in earlier proceedings
b) There should be finality in litigation and a party should not be twice vexed in the same matter
c) There is a public interest in efficiency and economy in the conduct of litigation
d) The burden is on the party alleging abuse to demonstrate it
e) A collateral attack on a previous decision makes the later proceedings more obviously abusive;
f) There is a “core policy against the re-litigation of identical claims”.
We also applied for limited civil restraint order, which is an order restraining a party “from making any further applications in current proceedings”. A limited civil restraint order may be made by a judge of any court where a party has made 2 or more applications which are totally without merit. Where the court makes a limited civil restraint order, the party against whom the order is made
1) will be restrained from making any further applications in the proceedings in which the order is made without first obtaining the permission of a judge identified in the order
2) may apply for amendment or discharge of the order provided he has first obtained the permission of a judge identified in the order; and
3) may apply for permission to appeal the order and if permission is granted, may appeal the order.
The Court agreed that the Claimant had made two applications totally without merit.
The claim was struck out with costs awarded for our client a limited civil restrain order granted.
Catherine Urquhart of Ely Place Chambers, London represented our client at the hearing.
Rogers & Norton’s litigation team are gaining a burgeoning reputation for the ability to react rapidly to their client’s needs, no matter what time of day or weekend. This dedication to client service, together with the constructive and decisive solutions Peter and his team offers to the problems they are presented with has led to great feedback from the clients.
“We are extremely grateful to Rogers & Norton for their efforts in securing this outcome”