- Cited — Peter Orji & Anor v Sukhdip Nagra & Anor 2023-11-06
“…to remember that, whenever it arises, the rule in Henderson v Henderson requires a previous determination by the court. As Lord Hobhouse put it in In Re Norris [2001] UKHL 34 at paragraph 26: “It will be a rare case where the litigation of an issue which has not previously been decided between the same parties or their privies will …”
- Cited — Chowdhury Mueen-Uddin Secretary of State for the Home Department 2022-07-28
“…the litigation of 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 …”
- Cited — Jersey Choice Limited v Her Majesty's Treasury 2021-12-17
“…The judge also cited R v Norris[2001] UKHL 34 where Lord Hobhouse observed at paragraph [26] that "It will be a rare case where the litigation of an issue which has not previously been decided between the …”
- Cited — AB Volvo (Publ) & Ors v Ryder Ltd & Ors 2020-11-11
“…arties will be “entirely exceptional” (see per Flaux LJ in Kamoka v Security Services [2017] EWCA Civ 1665, [119]) or “rare” (per Lord Hobhouse in In re Norris [2001] UKHL 34 at [26]).…”
- Cited — Behbehani v Behbehani 2019-12-20
“…In reaching this conclusion, Gloster LJ, with whom the other judges of the court agreed, cited at length from the decision of the House of Lords in Re Norris [2001] UKHL 34 where HM Customs and Excise had obtained a confiscation order against a convicted drug trafficker in criminal proceedings in which he received a sentence of im…”