An impecunious plaintiff's continuation of civil proceedings while not complying with monetary orders of another court does not constitute an abuse of process where the plaintiff's claims are arguable, the non-compliance results from inability rather than unwillingness to pay, and there was no vexatious conduct leading to the monetary orders. The inability to recover monies under such orders derives from the plaintiff's impecuniosity, not from the continuation of proceedings. A non-binding intention imputed to a court that made the monetary orders cannot ground an abuse of process finding.
The full text is available to signed-in members, including the 4 later cases that cite this judgment.