Melbourne City Investments Pty Ltd v Leighton Holdings Limited

[2015] VSCA 235

Victorian Court of Appeal

Built by Barristers,
For Australian Law.

See how it works

Interrogate

Catchwords

1. Practice and Procedure
2. › Stay of proceedings
3. › Abuse of process
4. › Proceeding commenced for predominant purpose of generating legal fees for plaintiff's solicitor
5. › Whether proper purpose
6. › Whether proper use of processes of court
7. › Williams v Spautz (1992) 174 CLR 509
1. Practice and Procedure
2. › Stay of proceedings
3. › Second application for stay
4. › Whether second application an abuse of process
5. › New appellate authority on same issue
6. › Whether change in law constitutes special or exceptional circumstances justifying second application
1. Practice and Procedure
2. › Interlocutory and final orders
3. › Order refusing stay on abuse of process grounds
4. › Whether interlocutory or final
5. › Whether capable of engaging res judicata or issue estoppel
1. Practice and Procedure
2. › Res judicata and issue estoppel
3. › Interlocutory orders
4. › Whether interlocutory order refusing stay engages issue estoppel or res judicata
5. › Arnold v National Westminster Bank Plc [1991] 2 AC 93
6. › Whether Arnold exception applies in Australia

Quick Take

An order refusing a stay on abuse of process grounds is interlocutory and does not engage res judicata or issue estoppel, meaning a party may bring a second stay application without being precluded by the first refusal. A second interlocutory application for a stay is not an abuse of process where it is prompted by new appellate authority on the same issue and brought with reasonable diligence. Commencing a proceeding for the predominant purpose of generating legal fees for the plaintiff's solicitor, rather than recovering compensation, is an abuse of process, and subsequent changes of solicitor do not cure the abuse inherent in the commencement of the proceeding.