Author: Howard Tilney
Published: May 31, 2018
Reading time: 2 minutes
This article is 6 years old.
Read our disclaimer keyboard_arrow_down
This website content is intended as a general guide to law as it applies to the motor trade. Lawgistics has taken every effort to ensure that the contents are as accurate and up to date as at the date of first publication.
The laws and opinions expressed within this website may be varied as the law develops. As such we cannot accept liability for or the consequence of, any change of law, or official guidelines since publication or any misuse of the information provided.
The opinions in this website are based upon the experience of the authors and it must be recognised that only the courts and recognised tribunals can interpret the law with authority.
Examples given within the website are based on the experience of the authors and centre upon issues that commonly give rise to disputes. Each situation in practice will be different and may comprise several points commented upon.
If you have any doubt about the correct legal position you should seek further legal advice from Lawgistics or a suitably qualified solicitor. We cannot accept liability for your failure to take professional advice where it should reasonably be sought by a prudent person.
All characters are fictitious and should not be taken as referring to any person living or dead.
Use of this website shall be considered acceptance of the terms of the disclaimer presented above.
In this case we assisted a member to challenge a claim by a consumer for the recovery of repair costs.
Against the facts, the Court made an award in favour of the consumer.
Some months later the consumer issued a second claim against our member but this time seeking a full refund of the price paid.
We assisted in the preparation of a suitable defence, as required.
As a preliminary point, it was argued that the cause of action in the second case was identical to the cause of action in the former, which had already been determined by the Court.
Given the above, cause of action estoppel applied as an absolute bar to the second claim, per Arnold v National Westminster Bank PLC (1991).
Further or alternatively, abuse of process was argued, per Henderson v Henderson (1843).
The Court was invited to strike out the claim pursuant to CPR rule 3.4(2)(a) & (b), forthwith.
After considering the strength of our members defence on the papers only, the Court was satisfied that the second action was an attempt to re-litigate the matter previously dealt with by the Court and the proceedings were struck out as an abuse of process.
One interesting aside, the same Judge dealt with both cases but the outcome for the consumer was very different in each.
