Tee-Hillman v Tee & Ors

The court may strike out any civil process that is abusive, including an originating summons seeking to reopen earlier orders. There is no special entitlement to have such a summons heard. Alleged non-disclosure does not by itself justify reopening concluded litigation where the issue has been considered and the earlier orders have been unsuccessfully challenged or the litigation has otherwise run its course. The court may also restrain further applications concerning the same subject matter under the Grepe v Loam principle.

The appellant sought permission to appeal against orders made by Munby J in the Family Division on 1 May 2002. Munby J had struck out an originating summons challenging earlier matrimonial, property and negligence-related orders concerning the appellant’s former marriage, financial affairs and Gorse Meadow. He also made an order under the Grepe v Loam principle restricting further applications without permission.

The appellant relied principally on alleged non-disclosure of a contract relating to Gorse Meadow and argued that an originating summons seeking to set aside earlier orders could not properly be struck out. The central issues were whether the process was abusive and whether the alleged non-disclosure justified reopening the previous litigation.

1. Application dismissed. The court upheld Munby J’s decision to strike out the originating summons and to make a restraining order under the Grepe v Loam principle.

2. The court has a duty, or at least a right, to protect its own procedure. If any originating civil process is genuinely abusive, the court may strike it out and may often be required to do so. There is no exception for an originating summons seeking to set aside earlier orders.

3. The alleged non-disclosure of the contract did not justify reopening the previous proceedings. The issue had been considered on its merits by Judge Bradbury, who found that the contract would not have altered the original decision. Even if that conclusion could be challenged, it could not justify going behind earlier orders which had themselves been challenged on appeal.

4. The litigation had run its course. The successive attempts to reargue the earlier decisions constituted an abuse of process, and it was appropriate to bring the matter to a final end.

• High Court, Family Division: Munby J struck out the originating summons on 1 May 2002 and made a restraining order under the Grepe v Loam principle.
• Court of Appeal (Civil Division): Laws LJ dismissed the application for permission to appeal.