Read the full judgment text of CACV 37/2012 on BabelCite. This Court of Appeal judgment was delivered on 15 March 2013 before Yeung VP, Kwan JA, Barma JA.
Civil procedure – res judicata – cause of action estoppel – abuse of process – functus officio – appeal from decision to allow re-amendment of statement of claim – unlawful means conspiracy – pleading deficiency – strike out – whether dismissal of claim against defendants on pleading point bars subsequent re-formulated plea – whether earlier judgment determined same question – former officers and employees defecting to competitor – Total group companies suing former officers and Gulf Oil entities for breach of duties and unlawful means conspiracy. The 5th and 6th defendants (Gulf Oil Marine Limited and Gulf Oil International UK Limited) appealed against Poon J's 2012 Judgment allowing the plaintiffs to re-amend their statement of claim to bring the conspiracy claim back against them, after the claim had been struck out in 2009 and the action dismissed in 2010 on the basis that the proposed amended statement of claim (ASOC) did not plead intent to injure. The Court of Appeal held, dismissing the appeal, that cause of action estoppel did not apply because the earlier judgments determined the claim only on a pleading deficiency, and the 2012 Judgment addressed a re-formulated plea (the RASOC) that cured the deficiency by pleading intent to injure – a different question from that determined in the earlier judgments. The court further held that res judicata in the wider (Henderson v Henderson) sense did not bar the re-formulated claim, as the lower court had properly balanced the competing interests and any prejudice to the 5th and 6th defendants was compensable by costs and interest adjustment. The court also held that the judge below was not functus officio, as the 2012 Judgment did not re-adjudicate the same question previously determined. The decisions in Workington Harbour and Dundas v Waddell were distinguished. The 5th and 6th defendants were ordered to pay the plaintiffs' costs of the appeal with a certificate for two counsel.
Legal issues: Whether cause of action estoppel bars re-litigation of unlawful means conspiracy claim after re-formulated pleading following strike-out on pleading deficiency · Whether res judicata in the wider (Henderson v Henderson) sense bars the re-formulated conspiracy claim as an abuse of process · Whether the judge was functus officio in granting the 2012 re-amendment after the 2009 and 2010 Judgments became final
Outcome: Appeal of the 5th and 6th defendants dismissed.
Cited by 2 cases · Cites 4 cases