- Cited — Rasal Khaimah Investment Authority v Farhad Azima & Ors 2023-05-15
“… an issue which has not previously been decided between the same parties or their privies will amount to an abuse of process, see Lord Hobhouse in In re Norris [2001] 1 WLR 1388.”…”
- Cited — Rasal Khaimah Investment Authority v Farhad Azima & Ors 2023-05-15
“…[2001] 1 WLR 1388…”
- Cited — Chowdhury Mueen-Uddin Secretary of State for the Home Department 2022-07-28
“…f an issue which has not previously been decided between the same parties or their privies will amount to an abuse of process, see In re Norris [2001] UKHL 34; [2001] 1 WLR 1388 but this is not unknown, see Tinkler v Ferguson [2020] EWHC 1467 (QB); [2020] 4 WLR 89, affirmed on appeal [2021] EWCA Civ 18; [2021] 4 WLR 27.…”
- Cited — Pricewaterhousecoopers LLP v BTI 2014 LLC 2021-01-11
“… an issue which has not previously been decided between the same parties or their privies will amount to an abuse of process, see Lord Hobhouse in In re Norris [2001] 1 WLR 1388.…”
- Cited — Pricewaterhousecoopers LLP v BTI 2014 LLC 2021-01-11
“…ings are an abuse of process: see for example per Sir David Cairns in Bragg v Oceanus [1982] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 132 at 138-9, per Lord Hobhouse at [26] In re Norris [2001] 1 WLR 1388, per…”
- Cited — Mirchandani v The Lord Chancellor 2020-10-02
“…We were next referred to the decision of the House of Lords in In re Norris [2001] UKHC 34, [2001] 1 WLR 1388. In that case, a Crown Court judge, in deciding the extent of a confiscation order in confiscation proceedings under the Drug Trafficking Offences Act 1986, re…”
- Cited — Behbehani v Behbehani 2019-12-20
“…or a binding determination of that issue, leaving the receivership order in place in the interim. He relied on the decisions of the House of Lords in Re Norris [2001] 1 WLR 1388 and of this court in Ablyazov (No.15) in support of the proposition that a third party who was not a party to proceedings is not precluded from subsequently as…”