Rawlinson & Hunter Trustees SA v ITG Ltd & Anor (Re: Tchenguiz)

A party may be barred from making a second application which substantially re-runs an earlier unsuccessful application. The court must assess the application broadly, weighing finality, fairness to the other party and proper use of court resources. Relevant considerations include material change, genuinely substantial new material, whether that material was available earlier, and whether its omission was conscious or deliberate.

The claimant sought permission to re-amend its pleadings and serve further claims out of the jurisdiction. The proposed amendments revived contract and proprietary estoppel claims previously rejected on an inter partes application. Permission to appeal was refused in relation to those claims. The claimant relied on further witness statements and documents. The defendants argued that the renewed application was barred by issue estoppel or was an abuse of process.

The central issue was whether the court should entertain the renewed application.

1. Disposition. The application was dismissed as an abuse of process.
2. The additional witness statements did not materially alter the balance of the arguments. The proposed documents were either not new or insignificant.
3. The renewed application would therefore be a re-run of the earlier application, after permission to appeal had been refused.
4. The court assessed the matter broadly, considering finality, protection from repeated vexation, conservation of judicial resources, material change, new material, its earlier availability and conscious non-use.
5. The interlocutory nature of the earlier application did not justify a further hearing. The case was not an exceptional case in which refusing a second application would be disproportionate.

1. High Court (Chancery Division): Master Marsh set aside permission to serve out and declared that the court had no jurisdiction over the claims.
2. High Court: Arnold J refused permission to appeal concerning the contract and estoppel claims.
3. High Court: Nugee J allowed the appeal concerning the loan agreement claim and non-disclosure.
4. High Court (Chancery Division): the present renewed application was dismissed as an abuse of process.