Van Gorp v Davy

The parties to this proceeding were Van Gorp (appellant) and Davy (respondents). The appellant sought leave to appeal to the Court of Appeal from a decision of the primary judge. The dispute concerned fresh proceedings initiated by the appellant, which the respondents argued constituted an abuse of process as they involved the same parties and essentially the same issues and grounds as a previous appeal to the High Court that had been dismissed.

The Court of Appeal was required to determine whether the appellant's fresh proceedings were an abuse of process, whether leave to appeal should be granted in circumstances where the proposed appeal raised no issue of principle or question of general public importance, and whether the proceedings were unjustifiably oppressive to the respondents and brought the administration of justice into disrepute.

The Court reasoned that allowing the appellant to pursue the fresh proceedings would circumvent the proper appellate processes and was unjustifiably oppressive to the respondents. The Court applied the principle that equity would attend to the real justice of the case and would not intervene on behalf of someone who lacked standing or sought to abuse the court's processes. Given that the appeal raised no issue of principle or question of general public importance, and the proceedings were an abuse of process, the Court found no basis for granting leave to appeal.

Consequently, the summons seeking leave to appeal was dismissed with costs.