Defining the limits to abuse of process: Lim Geok Lin Andy v Yap Jin Meng Bryan

The abuse of process jurisdiction, which forms part of the doctrine of res judicata, is meant to uphold finality of litigation and prevent abusive litigation. While the jurisdiction has been applied to the original parties of earlier court proceedings, it could also prevent a person who was not part...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Main Author: QUEK ANDERSON, Dorcas
Format: text
Language:English
Published: Institutional Knowledge at Singapore Management University 2018
Subjects:
Online Access:https://ink.library.smu.edu.sg/sol_research/2598
https://ink.library.smu.edu.sg/context/sol_research/article/4556/viewcontent/Case_Note_on_Lim_Geok_Lin_Andy_v_Yap_Jin_Meng_Bryan_accepted_version.pdf
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
Institution: Singapore Management University
Language: English
id sg-smu-ink.sol_research-4556
record_format dspace
spelling sg-smu-ink.sol_research-45562018-05-18T09:03:25Z Defining the limits to abuse of process: Lim Geok Lin Andy v Yap Jin Meng Bryan QUEK ANDERSON, Dorcas The abuse of process jurisdiction, which forms part of the doctrine of res judicata, is meant to uphold finality of litigation and prevent abusive litigation. While the jurisdiction has been applied to the original parties of earlier court proceedings, it could also prevent a person who was not part of earlier court proceedings from litigating his claim. In such circumstances, the abuse of process doctrine has to be cognisant of the commercial realities and motivations driving choices to advance separate rather than consolidated proceedings, while also protecting litigants from repeated litigation. A recent Singapore Court of Appeal decision imposed constraints to applying the abuse of process jurisdiction to persons not involved in earlier proceedings. It also departed from the UK jurisprudence in its assessment of a person’s decision to defer his action till the completion of a closely related case. This note discusses the impact of the decision on the future ambit of the abuse of process jurisdiction, and highlights the crucial interests that should be balanced in determining whether abuse of process applies to new parties. 2018-01-01T08:00:00Z text application/pdf https://ink.library.smu.edu.sg/sol_research/2598 https://ink.library.smu.edu.sg/context/sol_research/article/4556/viewcontent/Case_Note_on_Lim_Geok_Lin_Andy_v_Yap_Jin_Meng_Bryan_accepted_version.pdf http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/ Research Collection Yong Pung How School Of Law eng Institutional Knowledge at Singapore Management University res judicata abuse of process virgin atlantic issue estoppel cause of action estoppel Civil Procedure Dispute Resolution and Arbitration
institution Singapore Management University
building SMU Libraries
continent Asia
country Singapore
Singapore
content_provider SMU Libraries
collection InK@SMU
language English
topic res judicata
abuse of process
virgin atlantic
issue estoppel
cause of action estoppel
Civil Procedure
Dispute Resolution and Arbitration
spellingShingle res judicata
abuse of process
virgin atlantic
issue estoppel
cause of action estoppel
Civil Procedure
Dispute Resolution and Arbitration
QUEK ANDERSON, Dorcas
Defining the limits to abuse of process: Lim Geok Lin Andy v Yap Jin Meng Bryan
description The abuse of process jurisdiction, which forms part of the doctrine of res judicata, is meant to uphold finality of litigation and prevent abusive litigation. While the jurisdiction has been applied to the original parties of earlier court proceedings, it could also prevent a person who was not part of earlier court proceedings from litigating his claim. In such circumstances, the abuse of process doctrine has to be cognisant of the commercial realities and motivations driving choices to advance separate rather than consolidated proceedings, while also protecting litigants from repeated litigation. A recent Singapore Court of Appeal decision imposed constraints to applying the abuse of process jurisdiction to persons not involved in earlier proceedings. It also departed from the UK jurisprudence in its assessment of a person’s decision to defer his action till the completion of a closely related case. This note discusses the impact of the decision on the future ambit of the abuse of process jurisdiction, and highlights the crucial interests that should be balanced in determining whether abuse of process applies to new parties.
format text
author QUEK ANDERSON, Dorcas
author_facet QUEK ANDERSON, Dorcas
author_sort QUEK ANDERSON, Dorcas
title Defining the limits to abuse of process: Lim Geok Lin Andy v Yap Jin Meng Bryan
title_short Defining the limits to abuse of process: Lim Geok Lin Andy v Yap Jin Meng Bryan
title_full Defining the limits to abuse of process: Lim Geok Lin Andy v Yap Jin Meng Bryan
title_fullStr Defining the limits to abuse of process: Lim Geok Lin Andy v Yap Jin Meng Bryan
title_full_unstemmed Defining the limits to abuse of process: Lim Geok Lin Andy v Yap Jin Meng Bryan
title_sort defining the limits to abuse of process: lim geok lin andy v yap jin meng bryan
publisher Institutional Knowledge at Singapore Management University
publishDate 2018
url https://ink.library.smu.edu.sg/sol_research/2598
https://ink.library.smu.edu.sg/context/sol_research/article/4556/viewcontent/Case_Note_on_Lim_Geok_Lin_Andy_v_Yap_Jin_Meng_Bryan_accepted_version.pdf
_version_ 1772829355060232192