C. CHRISTO & CO LIMITED v NICHOLAS CHRISTOFOROU & Anor.
[2023] EWHC 1094 (KB)
Maia Luxury Limited v Luxierge Limited & Anor
1 March 2024
[2024] EWHC 454 (KB)
High Court
Someone sued twice over a failed luxury handbag deal. The second lawsuit was challenged as repeating the first. The judge decided the first case's settlement didn't stop the second lawsuit and refused to dismiss it, making the losing party pay the legal costs.
Key Facts
- •Maia Luxury Limited (Claimant) sued Luxierge Limited and Paresh Jitendrakumar Lalji Thanky (Defendants) for breach of contract, misrepresentation, unjust enrichment, and mistake.
- •The claim stemmed from a failed transaction involving a Hermes bag, with £170,000 paid but the bag never received.
- •A previous claim (QB-2022-000288) was discontinued after a settlement where the Claimant paid the Defendants' costs.
- •The Defendants applied to strike out the current claim, arguing it was an abuse of process (Henderson principle).
- •The key dispute centred on whether the settlement of the first claim encompassed all future claims arising from the same facts.
Legal Principles
Henderson principle: Prevents a party from raising in subsequent proceedings matters that could and should have been raised in earlier ones.
Henderson v Henderson (1843) 3 Hare 100
Abuse of process: A broad, merits-based judgment considering all facts to determine if a party is misusing court process.
Johnson v Gore Wood [2002] 2 AC 1
Negligent failure to serve a claim form is not abuse of process without more (e.g., inordinate delay, intentional default).
Aktas v Adepta [2011] QB 894
Compromise of earlier proceedings considered in determining abuse of process; mere discontinuance doesn't automatically bar future proceedings.
Spicer v Tuli [2012] 1 WLR 3088
Discontinuing a claim under CPR 38 allows for a second action even if based on same facts (permission needed if defence served).
CPR 38
Power to strike out or stay proceedings is not dependent on cause of action or issue estoppel.
King v Kings Solutions Group [2020] EWHC 2861 (Ch)
CPR 3.4(2)(b): Court may strike out a statement of case if it is an abuse of the court's process.
CPR 3.4(2)(b)
Outcomes
Defendants' application to strike out the claim was dismissed.
The court found the Defendants failed to demonstrate the claim was an abuse of process. The settlement of the first claim did not explicitly bar future claims, and the circumstances did not suggest unjust harassment.
Defendants ordered to pay Claimant's costs.
This was the court's preliminary view, subject to further submissions.
Similar Cases
Andrew Hicks Engineering Limited v Jenk Associates Limited & Anor
[2023] EWHC 2031 (Ch)
Nicola Bayless & Ors v Norfolk and Norwich University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust
[2023] EWHC 2986 (KB)
Outotec (USA) Inc & Anor v MW High Tech Projects UK Limited
[2024] EWCA Civ 844
Andrew Charles Battenburg v Bruce Keith Phillips & Anor
[2024] EWHC 3444 (KB)