- Cited — Peter Orji & Anor v Sukhdip Nagra & Anor 2023-11-06
“…The modern statement of this principle can be found in the speech of Lord Bingham of Cornhill in Johnson v Gore Wood & Co [2002] 2 AC 1 30H-31F, where he said:…”
- Cited — Lawrence Ewan McGaughey & Anor v Universities Superannuation Scheme Limited & Ors 2023-07-21
“…ctly sustained by the subsidiary and as such it is not recoverable by the parent company or its shareholders for the reasons stated in Johnson v Gore Wood & Co [2002] 2 AC 1. But this is a matter of legal policy. It is not because the law does not recognise the loss as a real loss; it is because if creditors are not to be prejudice…”
- Cited — Denaxe Limited v Paul Cooper & Anor 2023-06-30
“…relation to Henderson v Henderson abuse of process, Lord Sumption referred in Virgin at [24] to the well-known statement by Lord Bingham in Johnson v Gore-Wood [2002] 2 AC 1 at page 31,…”
- Cited — Rasal Khaimah Investment Authority v Farhad Azima & Ors 2023-05-15
“…[2002] 2 AC 1 at 31 advocating a broad merits-based approach to abuse of process:…”
- Cited — Damian Warburton v The Chief Constable of Avon and Somerset Constabulary 2023-03-02
“…The Henderson abuseprinciple, as developed in subsequent cases, was authoritatively reviewed by the House of Lords in Johnson v Gore Wood & Co (a firm) [2002] 2 AC 1. Mr Johnson’s company, WWH, sued its solicitors for professional negligence in relation to the exercise of an option to purchase land. During the course of tho…”
- Distinguished — Pankim Kumar Patel v Minerva Services Delaware, Inc & Ors 2023-02-10
“…s issue Lords Goff of Chieveley, Cooke of Thorndon and Hutton agreed, provided the modern authoritative statement of that principle in Johnson v Gore Wood & Co [2002] 2 AC 1, distinguishing it from res judicata in the following terms at 30H – 31F:…”
- Cited — Pankim Kumar Patel v Minerva Services Delaware, Inc & Ors 2023-02-10
“…he did not know and could not reasonably have discovered at the time of the first hearing. This is not a departure from the principle in Johnson Gore Wood & Co [2002] 2 AC 1 that it is not sufficient to establish that a point could have been taken on an earlier occasion, but a recognition that where it should have been taken then, …”
- Cited — Dr Reddy's Laboratories (UK) Limited & Ors v Warner-Lambert Company LLC 2023-02-01
“…ses to cite two passages from the authorities which are relied upon by Warner-Lambert. The first is from the speech of Lord Bingham in Johnson v Gore Wood & Co [2002] 2 AC 1 at 30-31:…”
- Cited — Dr Reddy's Laboratories (UK) Limited & Ors v Warner-Lambert Company LLC 2023-02-01
“… or abusing the process of the court by seeking to raise before it the issue which could have been raised before” (see Lord Bingham in Johnson v Gore-Wood & Co [2002] 2 AC 1 at 30). That is what the judge did. In my judgment he was right to conclude that the proposed amendment is an abuse of process. That is enough to dismiss the a…”
- Followed — Lucy Burnford & Ors v Auotmobile Association Developments Limited 2022-11-14
“…The “reflective loss” principle was the subject of consideration by the House of Lords in Johnson v Gore Wood & Co [2002] 2 AC 1 (“Johnson”). Lord Bingham said at 35-36 that he considered the authorities to support the following propositions:…”
- Cited — Lucy Burnford & Ors v Auotmobile Association Developments Limited 2022-11-14
“…ther hand, a loss may have little or no impact on its share value. If there is an impact on share value, it will reflect what Lord Millett described in Johnson [2002] 2 AC 1, 62 as ‘market sentiment’, and will not necessarily be equivalent to the company’s loss. If the company’s loss does not affect the value of its shares, then th…”
- Cited — Tyne and Wear Passenger Transport Executive (trading as Nexus) v National Union of Rail, Maritime and Transport Workers & Anor. 2022-10-27
“…the case-law about the basis of the rule in Henderson v Henderson, in particular the decision of the House of Lords in Johnson v Gore-Wood & Co [2000] UKHL 65, [2002] 2 AC 1, and concludes, at para. 25, that res judicata and abuse of process “are distinct although overlapping legal principles with the common underlying purpose of l…”
- Approved — Tyne and Wear Passenger Transport Executive (trading as Nexus) v National Union of Rail, Maritime and Transport Workers & Anor. 2022-10-27
“…In Johnson v Gore-Wood & Co [2000] UKHL 65, [2002] 2 AC 1, Lord Bingham approved a finding that the owner of a company which was his “corporate embodiment” could be prevented by issue estoppel from revisiting a decisi…”
- Cited — Tyne and Wear Passenger Transport Executive (trading as Nexus) v National Union of Rail, Maritime and Transport Workers & Anor. 2022-10-27
“…[2002] 2 AC 1 at 31, there is a public interest in finality in litigation which is reinforced by the emphasis on efficiency and economy in the conduct of litigation, in the …”
- Cited — Chowdhury Mueen-Uddin Secretary of State for the Home Department 2022-07-28
“…The starting point is that everyone has the right to a fair hearing to determine their civil rights. In Johnson v Gore Wood & Co [2002] 2 AC 1 at page 22c Lord Bingham stated that “the rule of law depends upon the existence and availability of courts and tribunals to which citizens may resort for the …”
- Cited — Município de Mariana v BHP Group (UK) Ltd & Anor. 2022-07-08
“…1982] AC 529 (“Hunter”); Her Majesty’s Attorney General v Barker [2000] EWHC 453 (Admin), [2000] 1 FLR 759 (“Barker”); Johnson v Gore Wood & Co [2000] UKHL 65, [2002] 2 AC 1 (“Johnson”) (citing Henderson v Henderson [1843] 3 Hare 100 (“Henderson”)); Dexter Ltd v Vlieland-Boddy [2003] EWCA Civ 14 (“Dexter”); and AB v John Wyeth & Br…”
- Followed — Mark Damien Clarkson v Future Resources FZE & Ors. 2022-02-24
“…n dispute. Rather it is their application to the circumstances of this case that gives rise to this challenge. In short, in Johnson v Gore-Wood [2002] UKHL 65, [2002] 2 AC 1, Lord Bingham of Cornhill summarised the approach at page 31 as follows:…”
- Cited — In the matter of Kings Solutions Group Limited 2021-12-17
“…Certificate relating to the Misrepresentation Claim. The judge analysed a number of authorities on abuse of process, including in particular Johnson v Gore Wood[2002] 2 AC 1, together with the decision in Drukker v Pridie Brewster [2006] 3 Costs LR 439 on the scope of a costs assessment.…”
- Cited — In the matter of Kings Solutions Group Limited 2021-12-17
“…ocess after the case of the same name: see (1843) 3 Hare 100. The leading modern statement of the principle is the speech of Lord Bingham in Johnson v Gore Wood[2002] 2 AC 1 at page 31, where Lord Bingham advocated that the court should take,…”
- Cited — Jersey Choice Limited v Her Majesty's Treasury 2021-12-17
“…[2002] 2 AC 1…”
- Cited — Navigator Equities Limited & Anor. v Oleg Vladimirovich Deripaska 2021-11-30
“…n the public interest that there should be finality in litigation and that a party should not be “twice vexed” in the same matter (see Johnson v Gore Wood & Co [2002] 2 AC 1 at 31A-D). However, the Contempt Application was not an impermissible attempt to re-litigate an issue that not only could, but should, have been raised in the …”
- Cited — Unite the Union v Alec McfAdden 2021-02-19
“…re Lord Sumption JSC also cited the important decisions of the House of Lords in Arnold v National Westminster Bank [1991] 2 AC 93 and Johnson v Gore-Wood & Co [2002] 2 AC 1. At para. 17, Lord Sumption said:…”
- Cited — Al-Siri, R (On the Application Of) v Secretary of State for the Home Department 2021-02-08
“…es requiring finality in litigation, and that a party should not be vexed twice, exemplified by Henderson v Henderson (1843) 3 Hare 100 and Johnson v Gore Wood [2002] 2 AC 1, are applicable in public law as in private law. Just as applicants in asylum and immigration cases are required to put forward all the matters on which they r…”
- Cited — Tinkler v Ferguson & Ors 2021-02-01
“…Johnson v. Gore Wood & Co. [2002] 2 AC 1 per Lord Bingham at 22.…”
- Cited — Tinkler v Ferguson & Ors 2021-02-01
“…igated; see Lord Diplock in Hunter’s case [1982] AC 529, Lord Hoffmann in the Arthur J S Hall case [2002] 1 AC 615 and Lord Bingham in Johnson v Gore Wood & Co [2002] 2 AC 1. These interests reflect unfairness to a party on the one hand, and the risk of the administration of public justice being brought into disrepute on the other,…”
- Cited — Nectrus Ltd v UCP PLC 2021-01-21
“…This was the same point as Lord Bingham made in his first proposition in Johnson v Gore Wood [2002] 2 AC 1 at 35-36 as Lord Reed said at [42] having quoted Lord Bingham’s statement of principle at [41]:…”
- Cited — Nectrus Ltd v UCP PLC 2021-01-21
“…[2002] 2 AC 1,…”
- Cited — Nectrus Ltd v UCP PLC 2021-01-21
“…[2002] 2 AC 1…”
- Cited — Pricewaterhousecoopers LLP v BTI 2014 LLC 2021-01-11
“…ed; see Lord Diplock in Hunter v. Chief Constable [1982] AC 529, Lord Hoffmann in the Arthur Hall [2002] 1 AC 615 case and Lord Bingham in Johnson v. Gore Wood [2002] 2 AC 1. These interests reflect unfairness to a party on the one hand, and the risk of the administration of public justice being brought into disrepute on the other,…”
- Cited — Gray v Global Energy Horizons Corporation 2020-12-09
“…65, [2002] 2 AC 1 at 31 that it is “a broad, merits-based judgment which takes account of the public and private interests involved and also takes account of all the facts of th…”
- Cited — AB Volvo (Publ) & Ors v Ryder Ltd & Ors 2020-11-11
“…nd Industry v Bairstow [2003] EWCA Civ 321, [2004] Ch 1 at [38]. The CAT cited the well-known statement of Lord Bingham of Cornhill in Johnson v Gore Wood & Co [2002] 2 AC 1 (with which Lords Goff, Cooke and Hutton agreed). Lord Bingham referred at [31] to the abuse of process doctrine as being:…”
- Cited — Hillside Parks Ltd v Snowdonia National Park Authority 2020-11-03
“…At para. 24 Lord Sumption quoted Lord Bingham of Cornhill in the decision of the House of Lords in Johnson v Gore-Wood and Co [2002] 2 AC 1, at page 31:…”
- Cited — FB (Afghanistan) & Anor, R (On the Application Of) v The Secretary of State for the Home Department 2020-10-21
“…s to an abuse of process (see, e.g., Hunter v Chief Constable of WestMidlands Police [1982] AC 529 at page 536B-C per Lord Diplock, and Johnson vGore Wood & Co [2002] 2 AC 1 at page 22C-E per Lord Bingham of Cornhill). The court may therefore refuse to determine the merits of an application for interim relief in the form of a stay …”
- Considered — JSC VTB Bank v Skurikhin & Ors 2020-10-21
“…In Johnson v Gore Wood & Co [2002] 2 AC 1, the House of Lords considered the particular form of potential abuse (referred to as Henderson v Henderson abuse of process), where a party seeks to raise a m…”
- Cited — Koza Ltd & Anor v Koza Altin Isletmeleri AS 2020-07-31
“…The authoritative modern statement of the principle is to be found in the speech of Lord Bingham in Johnson v Gore Wood & Co [2002] 2 AC 1 at p30H-31F, with whom on this issue Lords Goff, Cooke and Hutton agreed:…”
- Cited — Koza Ltd & Anor v Koza Altin Isletmeleri AS 2020-07-31
“…igated; see Lord Diplock in Hunter's case [1982] AC 529 , Lord Hoffmann in the Arthur J S Hall case [2002]1 AC 615 and Lord Bingham in Johnson v Gore Wood & Co [2002] 2 AC 1. These interests reflect unfairness to a party on the one hand, and the risk of the administration of public justice being brought into disrepute on the other,…”
- Cited — Cable v Liverpool Victoria Insurance Co Ltd 2020-07-31
“…at second claim. In my view, those principles are not directly relevant to the present appeal. I do, however, note that at page 59D of Johnson v Gore Wood & Co [2002] 2 AC 1, Lord Millett said…”
- Cited — Markham v O'Hara 2019-03-19
“…n, relied on Henderson v Henderson abuse of process. Both counsel were in agreement that the test for an abuse of process was as set out in Johnson v Gore-Wood [2002] 2 AC 1 and that it was fact sensitive. As Lord Bingham stated in that case at p31:…”
- Cited — Sartipy (aka Hamila Sartipy) v Tigris Industries Inc 2019-03-01
“…s Sartiby wished to raise was an abuse of process, because if it was to have been advanced it could and should have been raised before (see Johnson v Gore Wood [2002] 2 AC 1). It is not, as the judge thought, a collateral attack on a previous decision of the court; it is a direct attack on the court's jurisdiction to make the order…”
- Cited — Terry v BCS Corporate Acceptances Ltd & Ors 2018-11-02
“…nwise to limit in advance the kinds of circumstances in which abuse might be found. See also the speech of Lord Bingham of Cornhill in Johnson v Gore Wood & Co [2002] 2 AC 1, 31.…”
- Cited — Personal Management Solutions Ltd & Anor v Brake Bros. Ltd & Ors 2018-07-12
“…In Johnson v Gore Wood & Co [2002] 2 AC 1, 31 Lord Bingham of Cornhill set out the correct approach to arguments based on Henderson v Henderson namely that it should be…”
- Cited — Garcia v Marex Financial Ltd 2018-06-26
“…ed its ability to show a completed cause of action in tort. The judge cited the statement of the principle by Lord Bingham in his speech in Johnson v Gore Wood [2002] 2 AC 1 at p 35E-F (set out at [17] below).…”
- Cited — Garcia v Marex Financial Ltd 2018-06-26
“…In Johnson v Gore Wood [2002] 2 AC 1, Mr Johnson was managing director and holder of all but two of the shares in the company WWH. He instructed the defendant solicitors on behalf of the company t…”
- Cited — Shiner & Anor v The Commissioners for HMRC 2018-01-23
“…ted jurisdiction and under CPR Part 54 a person who brings the application for judicial review is treated as the claimant. Moreover in Johnson v Gore Wood & Co [2002] 2 AC 1 the first claim was brought not by Mr Johnson but by his company. The requirement that there should be finality in litigation exemplified by the decision of th…”