C. CHRISTO & CO LIMITED v NICHOLAS CHRISTOFOROU & Anor.

Strike-out for abuse of process is discretionary. The court must consider proportionality, the overriding objective and whether a lesser case-management measure can address the alleged abuse.

Henderson v Henderson abuse requires more than showing that a matter could have been raised earlier. The court must make a broad, merits-based assessment of whether it should have been raised in the earlier proceedings.

Collateral-purpose abuse is not established by mixed motives or personal animosity where proceedings have a proper legal purpose. Jameel abuse requires an exceptional case in which no proportionate procedure can secure a real and legitimate benefit. The claim was not struck out because factual disputes remained, meaningful relief was arguable, and proportionate management remained possible.

The claimant sought injunctive and delivery-up relief concerning alleged misuse, and threatened future misuse, of confidential information held on business servers, back-up tapes, a hard drive and a laptop. The defendants applied to strike out the claim under CPR 3.4(2)(b), alleging Henderson v Henderson abuse, vexatious or collateral-purpose abuse, and Jameel abuse.

The defendants argued that the claim recycled allegations raised in earlier family-related litigation, was motivated by harassment, and was disproportionate to any relief realistically obtainable. The claimant relied on the distinct corporate interest in protecting business and client information and on factual disputes requiring trial. The central issue was whether any asserted abuse justified striking out the claim at an interlocutory stage.

1. Application refused. The defendants had not established abuse under any of the three alleged strands, whether separately or cumulatively.
2. Under CPR 3.4(2)(b), the power to strike out for abuse is permissive. The court must consider the overriding objective, proportionality and whether a lesser sanction can address the problem.
3. The factual overlap with the earlier Harassment Proceedings did not establish Henderson v Henderson abuse. The claimant was a separate company with protectible business and client information distinct from Chris’s personal information. Although the allegations could have been raised in connection with the earlier litigation, the court had to decide whether, in all the circumstances, they should have been raised there. The earlier proceedings had been settled with knowledge of the present claim, and the present claim was not a pure duplication.
4. The family dispute, criticism of conduct in other litigation, extensive requests and delay did not establish collateral-purpose abuse. Motive and intention were insufficient where the proceedings had an objective legitimate purpose, and procedural excesses could be managed by the court’s case-management powers.
5. On Jameel abuse, the court could not conclude at the interlocutory stage that no legitimate relief was available. The pleadings disclosed arguable factual disputes, possible copying or use of confidential information, and a case that some information remained confidential and protectible. The proposed undertakings were not yet binding and represented meaningful relief.
6. It was possible to manage and adjudicate the claim proportionately, including through costs controls and possible transfer to the County Court. The defendants were ordered to pay the claimant’s costs of the application, subject to detailed assessment, with £50,000 paid on account.