BARROW v BANKSIDE MEMBERS AGENCY LTD & ANOR (1996)
CA (Sir Thomas Bingham MR, Peter Gibson LJ, Saville LJ) 7/11/95
LLOYD'S NAMES LITIGATION : ABUSE OF PROCESS
Litigation procedures in the Lloyd litigation cases did not breach the public policy rule in Henderson v Henderson (1843) 3 Hare 100.
Defendants' appeal by Lloyd's managing agent from dismissal of its application to strike out a name's claim in negligence as an abuse of process. The application was based on the public policy rule in Henderson v Henderson (1843) 3 Hare 100 that a party must put its whole case before the court for it to be dealt with finally and must not proceed piecemeal. The plaintiff name had succeeded in a claim common to the one action group of names and now brought another claim on a new issue against the applicant.
HELD: The court had identified issues common to numerous claims and directed they should be presented in particular way. In following the court's direction the respondent could not be committing an abuse of process. The case did not fall within the mischief at which Henderson v Henderson was directed. An exception to the rule in such circumstances was recognised in Henderson v Henderson and Yat Tung Investment Co Ltd v Dao Heng Bank Ltd (1975) AC 581.
Peregrine Simon QC and Simon Bryan instructed by Elborne Mitchell for the appellants. Anthony Mann QC and David Lord instructed by Travers Smith Braithwaite for the respondent.
TLR 10/11/95 : (1996) 1 WLR 257 : (1996) 1 All ER 981 : (1996) CLC 413
Document No. AC0003280