Changes

The Court held that its abuse of process jurisdiction can be extended to prevent a party from mounting in a subsequent litigation an illegitimate collateral attack against a previous arbitration decision. Courts will scrutinise the facts of each case carefully to see if there exists any manifest unfairness or the potential to bring the administration of justice into disrepute by allowing the litigation to proceed. In the present case, each of the defendants was the alter ego of the other. They were also related parties to Galsworthy, who took part in a previous arbitration London against the plaintiff. In this litigation, the plaintiff was essentially mounting a challenge against part of the arbitral decision. This constituted an illegitimate collateral attack on the arbitral decision, and thus an abuse of process. The plaintiff’s claim was accordingly struck out. See now Update at the foot of this note.