Gazprom Export LLC v DDI Holdings Ltd

Where allegations have already been determined in earlier proceedings, their re-litigation will constitute an abuse of process only where it would be manifestly unfair or would bring the administration of justice into disrepute. The assessment is broad and merits-based. It must consider all relevant private and public interests, including whether the later party had a reasonable opportunity to participate, whether the losses or relief claimed are distinct, whether the earlier forum was private arbitration, and whether additional evidence is available.

There is no general rule preventing a party from inviting the court to reach a conclusion inconsistent with an earlier decision. Such cases are rare where the parties are not the same or privies. The high threshold was not met here.

Gazprom Export LLC applied under CPR rule 3.4(2)(b) to strike out competition-law allegations advanced by the Principal Defendants, including a counterclaim by Overgas Mrezhi AD.

The allegations substantially repeated competition-law allegations rejected in an ICC arbitration between Gazprom Export and Overgas Inc. The applicants accepted that the later parties were not bound by res judicata or issue estoppel. The central question was whether maintaining the allegations nevertheless constituted a Hunter-type abuse of process.

1. Application dismissed. The allegations of breaches of EU and Bulgarian competition law were substantially the same as those advanced and determined in the ICC arbitration, but the losses claimed by Overgas Mrezhi were distinct.
2. The court applied a broad, merits-based assessment. Abuse required either manifest unfairness to Gazprom Export through re-litigation or conduct bringing the administration of justice into disrepute. The burden lay on Gazprom Export, and the threshold was high.
3. The absence of identical parties or privity did not prevent a finding of abuse, but made such a finding rare. Overgas Mrezhi and the other Principal Defendants had no full or reasonable opportunity to present their own claims in the private arbitration. Assistance by documents or evidence did not amount to such an opportunity.
4. The arbitration agreement governed disputes between Gazprom Export and Overgas Inc. It could not restrict claims by Overgas Mrezhi, which could not have been referred to the arbitral tribunal without an arbitration agreement. The separate loss and the public-interest principle of effective enforcement of competition law strongly supported allowing the claims to proceed.
5. The availability of additional evidence and the use of a broader disclosure regime in the English proceedings reinforced the conclusion, although the same result would have followed without that consideration. There was no evidence of a collateral purpose or that the allegations were a collateral attack.
6. The decisions in Laing v Taylor Walton and Arts & Antiques Ltd v Richards were distinguishable because they concerned a party seeking, in later proceedings against a third party, to advance a case about a contract contrary to an earlier decision between the contracting parties.
7. It was not manifestly unfair to Gazprom Export, and the administration of justice would not be brought into disrepute. Striking out would instead cause unfairness to the Principal Defendants. The case was not one of the rare or exceptional cases warranting strike-out.