earlier County Court and Supreme Court proceedings
Quick Take
1Claims concerning a credit provider's pre-enforcement and enforcement conduct that were raised or could reasonably have been raised in earlier possession proceedings are barred by Anshun estoppel and abuse of process, even where the applicant was self-represented and did not identify the specific statutory provisions now relied upon — the relevant inquiry is whether the substance of the issue was available for ventilation, not whether a particular provision was cited by name.
2Sections 36 and 83 of the National Credit Code and clauses 22 and 28 of the Banking Code of Practice confer rights to specified statements and information; they do not impose an obligation on a credit provider to independently establish, to a debtor's satisfaction, the correctness of every underlying accounting entry.
3The fact that earlier proceedings resulted in default judgment or refusal to set aside default judgment, rather than a contested merits determination, does not prevent Anshun estoppel or abuse of process from operating where the party had the opportunity to ventilate the issues in those proceedings.
