The Court held that the High Court's test in GLJ and Willmot — requiring that a trial will 'necessarily' be unfair — applies to all categories of abuse of process permanent stay applications, including cases involving deliberate destruction of evidence during pending proceedings, thereby elevating the threshold beyond the 'real and substantial risk' test from Clark and Palavi. The motion for permanent stay or dismissal was refused because the insurer retained sufficient material to defend the claim on its pleaded grounds, and evidentiary techniques such as adverse inferences and admissions by conduct remained available to address prejudice caused by the insured's renovations. The Court left open the factual questions of whether the insured's conduct constituted admissions or warranted adverse inferences, holding these were matters for the trial judge.
The full text is available to signed-in members.