Maia Luxury Limited v Luxierge Limited & Anor

The Deputy Master refused the defendants' application to strike out the claimant's second claim under CPR 3.4(2) on the basis of abuse of process. The court applied the rule in Henderson as explained in Johnson v Gore Wood and related authorities, emphasising a broad merits-based assessment of whether the later proceedings amount to unjust harassment. The defendants failed to discharge the burden of showing that the earlier proceedings had been finally compromised so as to bar a fresh claim: the order setting aside default judgment and the surrounding correspondence did not indicate a settlement of all claims arising from the same factual matrix, there was no defence served in the first proceedings, and the defendants had received costs and cross-undertaking payments. The judge also noted that, if required to decide the merits, the claimant had a real prospect of success and a likelihood of establishing the defendant's dishonesty as to identity.

The claimant issued proceedings in January 2023 arising from an alleged contract for the purchase of a Hermes Birkin bag for £170,000 which the claimant said was not delivered as agreed. The claimant had previously issued near-identical proceedings in January 2022 but, due to an error in service (a transposed postcode), default judgment was entered and later set aside. A freezing injunction had been obtained in the first claim and a cross-undertaking payment of £15,000 was later made.

The defendants applied to strike out the second claim under CPR 3.4(2) on grounds that it was an abuse of process under the rule in Henderson, that the first claim had been compromised in full, and that the claimant should have raised all issues in the first proceedings. Two further points originally relied on (permission under CPR 38.7 and value threshold) were not pursued at the hearing.

The court framed the issues as whether the claimant was misusing court process by re‑issuing substantially the same claim and whether the compromise of the first proceedings had been intended to and did, in fact, settle all claims arising from the same facts. The judge reviewed leading authorities including Henderson v Henderson, Johnson v Gore Wood, Aktas v Adepta, Spicer v Tuli and King v Kings Solutions Group, and reiterated that a finding of abuse requires more than a mere procedural error or inadvertence and that the onus lies on the defendant.

The Deputy Master concluded that the defendants had not satisfied the burden. Key factual and legal reasons were: (i) the absence of any defence in the first proceedings and therefore no procedural bar to a fresh claim; (ii) the set-aside order and the parties' correspondence did not demonstrate an intention to settle all claims arising from the same factual matrix; (iii) the defendants had already been compensated for costs and by the cross-undertaking; and (iv) there was no evidence of unconscionable conduct or deliberate abuse such as would justify striking out the second claim. The judge added that, were he required to assess merits, the claimant had a real prospect of success and was likely to prove dishonesty as to identity. The defendants' application was dismissed and the court invited submissions on costs and permission to appeal.

The defendants' application to strike out the second claim for abuse of process is dismissed. The court held that the defendants did not satisfy the burden of proving Henderson abuse: the set-aside of default judgment, the absence of a defence in the first proceedings, the terms of the correspondence and the order did not show a settlement of all claims arising from the same facts, and there was no unjust harassment. The claimant also has a real prospect of success on the merits.