Where a plaintiff in defamation proceedings is restrained by existing court orders from publishing certain views, and the plaintiff's predominant purpose in bringing the proceedings is to use the court as a forum to express those views rather than to vindicate reputation, the proceedings constitute an abuse of process and may be permanently stayed. The collateral advantage of being able to debate in court what cannot lawfully be done elsewhere is extraneous to the purpose for which defamation proceedings are properly pursued. The case also confirms that the rule in Browne v Dunn is satisfied where a party has been given clear prior notice of the case to be met, even without specific cross-examination on each finding.
The full text is available to signed-in members, including the 13 later cases that cite this judgment.