Mariya Vasilyevna Lish v The Northern Block Limited & Anor

Abuse of process requires a broad, merits-based assessment of all the circumstances. The fact that a claim could have been brought in earlier proceedings does not make a later claim abusive; the question is whether it should have been brought earlier and whether pursuing it unjustly harasses or oppresses the other party or undermines finality. A distinct contractual claim for unpaid royalties was not abusive where it had not been pleaded or settled, and the defendants knew of it before accepting an offer confined to the pleaded claims. Additional copyright claims involving the same issues and remedies as claims settled earlier were abusive where the claimant knew of them, failed to raise them before settlement, and thereby undermined the settlement’s finality.

The claimant designed typefaces for The Northern Block Ltd under a 2012 distribution agreement, later varied in disputed terms. After the agreement ended, she brought a County Court claim concerning copyright ownership, infringement and post-termination sub-licence revenues. That claim was settled following an offer under Part 36 of the Civil Procedure Rules 1998.

She later issued a High Court claim for unpaid pre-termination royalties, infringement of additional typeface designs, and alleged non-compliance with the settlement. The judge struck out the unpaid royalties and additional infringement claims as abuses of process under rule 3.4(2)(b) of the Civil Procedure Rules 1998, but dismissed the summary judgment application concerning the settlement. The appeal concerned the two strike-outs.

1. The appeal was allowed in part. The Unpaid Royalties Claim was not an abuse of process. The judge had materially erred in treating it as involving the same issues and remedies as the earlier Newcastle Claim, in relying on alleged prejudice caused by settlement admissions, and in treating the claimant’s failure to withdraw her Part 36 offer and amend the earlier claim as significant. The earlier claim principally concerned copyright ownership and infringement. The later claim was contractual, concerned unpaid royalties before termination, and raised different issues and a different remedy ([45]-[55]).
2. The Court applied the principles in Johnson v Gore Wood & Co [2000] UKHL 65. The mere possibility of bringing a claim earlier is insufficient. The later claim must have been one which should have been brought earlier, assessed by a broad merits-based approach taking account of the public and private interests. The defendants knew of the unpaid royalties allegation before accepting the offer, and the offer settled only the pleaded claims. Pursuing the distinct claim, which had neither been adjudicated nor settled, was not unjust harassment or oppression ([53]-[67]).
3. The judge’s alternative findings that the claimant ought to have discovered the underpayment earlier were not properly open on the evidence. Rounding of payments did not establish notice of underpayment. The judge was influenced by hindsight as to the possible value of the claim. The claimant had sought information promptly after the draft amended defence disclosed the issue. The relevant enquiry extended to the parties’ conduct and knowledge up to acceptance of the settlement offer ([57]-[65]).
4. The Infringements Claim was correctly struck out. It involved the same issues and remedies as the copyright claims in the Newcastle Claim. The claimant knew of the additional claims, chose not to raise them, and did not alert the defendants before settlement. The defendants reasonably understood the settlement to resolve all the claimant’s copyright claims. Raising the additional claims afterwards undermined finality and amounted to unjust harassment ([68]-[70]).
5. The appeal was therefore allowed in relation to the Unpaid Royalties Claim and dismissed in relation to the Infringements Claim. The decision concerning the Neusa Next Claim was not challenged ([71]-[73]).

• Court of Appeal (Civil Division): The appeal from the order of David Stone, sitting as a Deputy High Court Judge, was allowed in relation to the Unpaid Royalties Claim and dismissed in relation to the Infringements Claim: [2026] EWCA Civ 497.
• High Court, Intellectual Property List (ChD): The Unpaid Royalties Claim and Infringements Claim were struck out as abuses of process under rule 3.4(2)(b) of the Civil Procedure Rules 1998. The summary judgment application concerning the Neusa Next Claim was dismissed: [2025] EWHC 2172 (Ch).