The Court held that where a client controls a corporate entity litigating claims, any related personal claims the client intends to bring — especially those factually inconsistent with the corporate claim — are disclosed to the court and counterparties during the earlier proceeding, or risk permanent stay as an abuse of process. The decision confirms that lack of litigation funding does not excuse non-disclosure of intended inconsistent claims, and that courts will draw adverse inferences from a party's failure to explain their knowledge and intentions regarding undisclosed claims.
The full text is available to signed-in members, including the 3 later cases that cite this judgment.
1 of the 3 citing cases carry a classified treatment. How each court treated it is available to signed-in members.