Lux Locations Ltd v Yida Zhang (Antigua & Barbuda)
[2023] UKPC 3
Peter Richard Andreewitch v Magali Moutreuil & Anor
10 September 2024
[2024] EWHC 2326 (Ch)
High Court
A man lost a court case and tried to appeal. The judge said he was trying to re-argue the same points repeatedly and was wasting everyone's time, so the appeal was rejected.
Key Facts
- •Mr. Andreewitch appealed a strike-out order (Jefferis Order) dismissing his claim against Ms. Moutreuil and Pier Investment Company Limited.
- •The claim comprised five parts: Loan Claim, Estoppel Claim, German Property Claim, Balance Sheet Claim, and Damages Claim.
- •Deputy Master Jefferis found the claim to be an abuse of process and without merit.
- •Rajah J granted permission to appeal only concerning the principal amount of the Loan Claim.
- •Mr. Andreewitch appealed the dismissal of the Loan Claim and sought permission to appeal the dismissal of the other claims.
- •Mr. Andreewitch represented himself as a litigant in person.
Legal Principles
Appeal limited to review of lower court's decision, not a retrial.
CPR rule 52.21
Appeal allowed if lower court's decision was wrong or unjust due to procedural irregularity.
CPR rule 52.21(3)
Appellate court intervenes only if the lower court misapplied the law or reached an unreasonable decision.
CPR rule 52.21(3)
Reluctance to interfere with lower court's balancing of factors, especially abuse of process, unless material factors omitted, errors in principle, or plainly wrong.
White Book, paragraph 52.21.5; Aldi Stores Ltd v WSP Group Plc; Stuart v Goldberg
Same principles for appeals to the Court of Appeal apply to appeals to the High Court.
Mark v Universal Coatings & Services Ltd
In determining if a lower court decision was wrong, consider how the parties' cases were formulated.
White Book
Failure to give reasons may justify allowing an appeal.
White Book, paragraph 52.21.7
Tests for striking out a claim under CPR rules 3.4(2)(a) and (b), and for summary judgment under CPR Part 24.2.
CPR rules 3.4(2)(a), 3.4(2)(b), 24.2; Easyair Ltd v Opal Telecom Ltd
Henderson v Henderson: Cannot relitigate matters already adjudicated upon unless special circumstances.
Henderson v Henderson (1843) 3 Hare 100
Abuse of process requires unjust harassment or oppression.
Outotec (USDA) Inc and others v MW High Tech Projects UK Limited
Promissory estoppel can only be used as a shield, not a sword.
Elements of proprietary estoppel: promise or assurance, reasonable reliance, detriment, unconscionability.
Snell on Equity
Presumption of resulting trust: where A funds a purchase in B's name, presumption is A didn't intend a gift, easily rebutted by evidence of intent.
Westdeutsche Landesbank Girozentrale v Islington LBC; Kyriakides v Pippas
Outcomes
Appeal dismissed regarding the principal amount of the Loan Claim.
Judge Jefferis's decision was not unreasonable; the claim was an abuse of process under Henderson v Henderson.
Permission to appeal denied regarding loan interest.
Agreement for interest lacked evidence; abuse of process under Henderson v Henderson.
Permission to appeal denied regarding the Estoppel Claim.
No reasonable reliance on vague assurances; no detrimental reliance shown.
Permission to appeal denied regarding the German Property Claim.
Matter already decided or would constitute further abuse of process under Henderson v Henderson due to inconsistent arguments.