Vella v Bowden [No 2]

The appeal, Vella v Bowden [No 2], was brought by the appellant, Mr Vella, against the decision of Bowden J to strike out portions of his indorsement to the writ of summons. The appellant was challenging the validity of a decision made by the respondent, Bowden J, in a previous matter. The legal dispute centred on whether certain allegations of fraud and issues regarding the application of Hunter principles were properly before the court. Additionally, the appellant sought to have the coram disqualified on the basis of natural justice.

The court had to determine whether the matters raised by the appellant were res judicata due to their previous determination in criminal proceedings. Furthermore, the court needed to consider the application of Hunter principles to the current proceedings, specifically whether the allegations of fraud and the application of Hunter principles were properly before the court. The court also had to decide if the appellant's application to disqualify the coram on the grounds of natural justice was valid.

The court found that the matters raised by the appellant were indeed res judicata, having been previously litigated and determined in the criminal proceedings. The court held that the appellant's claims were barred by the doctrine of res judicata, as they were the same issues that had already been determined in the criminal case. The court also found that the application of Hunter principles was not properly before the court, as they did not form part of the issues that were raised in the criminal proceedings. Finally, the court dismissed the appellant's application to disqualify the coram, finding that there was no valid grounds for doing so on the basis of natural justice. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed, and the decision of Bowden J to strike out the portions of the appellant's indorsement to the writ of summons was upheld.