Manson v Vooght & Ors

A claim may be struck out as an abuse of process where it could and should have been advanced in earlier concluded proceedings, even if the later claim differs in legal form or cause of action. The court must assess all the circumstances, including the relationship between the proceedings and the fairness of requiring the defendant to face further litigation. The rule is not confined by rigid categories and is subject to special circumstances. Lack of funds or legal-expenses insurance will not ordinarily excuse the abuse. The court must balance a claimant’s right to pursue a genuine claim against the defendant’s right to protection from multiple proceedings.

Mr Manson appealed against the dismissal of his appeal from orders striking out his claims and refusing permission to amend his statement of claim. The proposed claims concerned advice given before the appointment of administrative receivers, alleged duties owed by the receivers, and conversion of furniture and antiques.

The earlier proceedings had concerned remuneration and expenses arising from the receivership. Other proceedings had addressed the antiques, Mr Manson’s conduct as a director, his alleged wrongful dismissal and related complaints. The central issue was whether the proposed claims could and should have been litigated earlier and, if so, whether their later pursuit was an abuse of process.

1. Appeal dismissed. The Court of Appeal unanimously upheld the orders striking out the proceedings and refusing leave to amend. Leave to appeal to the House of Lords was refused.
2. The rule in Henderson v Henderson (1843) 3 Hare 100 is founded on abuse of process and public policy, rather than narrow res judicata or cause-of-action estoppel. A party must ordinarily bring forward the whole case in earlier proceedings. This includes matters which could and should have been raised then.
3. The rule is not limited to claims involving the same cause of action, facts or capacities. Those matters are relevant, but the outcome depends on all the circumstances. A later claim may properly be brought separately where doing so is sensible and does not create the abuse against which the rule is directed.
4. The court must balance the claimant’s right to pursue a genuine claim against the defendant’s right not to be harassed by successive proceedings. Special circumstances may negative or excuse an abuse, but negligence, inadvertence, accident and ordinary financial difficulty do not generally suffice.
5. Mr Manson’s proposed claims all concerned the receivership and its consequences. They could and should have been advanced in the 1990 action. Requiring the first defendant to face further claims concerning the company’s demise after the earlier action had been tried would be unjust harassment.
6. There were additional grounds for refusing amendment and striking out. The amendments were hopelessly late, limitation periods had expired, the original pleading lacked coherent legal structure, and earlier competent decisions concerning the antiques, Mr Manson’s dismissal and the company’s insolvency undermined the proposed claims.

• Court of Appeal (Civil Division): Appeal dismissed with costs; application for leave to appeal to the House of Lords refused.
• High Court, Queen’s Bench Division: Sir Peter Webster dismissed Mr Manson’s appeal from the Master’s orders and held that the proposed claims were an abuse of process.
• Master Leslie: Claims struck out as an abuse of process; leave to amend refused. The proposed new claims were also held to be statute barred.