The Court held that deeds of release settling historical abuse claims, which stated the plaintiff did not allege economic loss and made no demand for it, nevertheless operated to release the defendant from all claims including economic loss, construing the defined term 'the claims' broadly to encompass the entire subject matter of the dispute. The Court further held that the plaintiff's attempt to raise a construction argument — that the deeds did not bar economic loss claims — after failing to raise it by notice of contention or cross-appeal through the Court of Appeal and High Court, constituted an abuse of process, as it was unjustifiably oppressive to the defendant and apt to bring the administration of justice into disrepute given that both appellate courts had acted on the unchallenged premise that the deeds barred economic loss claims. The combination of the contractual construction finding and the abuse of process finding meant the plaintiff's economic loss claim was to be stayed or struck out.
The full text is available to signed-in members, including the 1 later case that cites this judgment.