A sole director and guiding mind of a company who participates in proceedings on behalf of the company may be precluded by abuse of process from re-litigating the same issues in subsequent guarantee proceedings, even though not formally a party to the earlier proceedings. The appropriate doctrinal basis is abuse of process rather than estoppel by representation, which avoids difficulties of reliance. A guarantor sued on a contract of guarantee for costs ordered against the principal debtor is not entitled to a costs statement under r 705 UCPR, as the proceedings are for recovery of a debt under the guarantee, not enforcement of a costs liability.
The full text is available to signed-in members, including the 12 later cases that cite this judgment.