The refusal of leave to amend a proceeding does not preclude the institution of a fresh proceeding containing the same allegations; the commencement of such a proceeding does not 'circumvent' the amendment ruling because the two applications involve fundamentally different considerations. A regulatory litigant's reasonable allocation of limited investigative resources, including prioritising claims facing imminent limitation periods, provides a reasonable explanation for not including all allegations in the original proceeding. The public interest in the adjudication of civil penalty allegations of significant wrongdoing is a material consideration in the abuse of process analysis.
The full text is available to signed-in members, including the 14 later cases that cite this judgment.