The Appellant appealed a Chambers Judge’s Order providing that Civil Practice Note 7 (CPN7) did not apply.

CPN7 sets out the summary procedures to be followed under Rule 3.68 when a claim, defence, action, application, or proceeding appears to be frivolous, vexatious, or an abuse of process. In the underlying Action, the Respondent filed a Statement of Claim against the Appellant and others, alleging constructive dismissal, negligence, and intentional infliction of mental suffering. Subsequently, she filed a second Statement of Claim with similar allegations, adding a new Defendant and new causes of action, including the tort of harassment.

Counsel for the Appellant wrote the Associate Chief Justice of the Court of King’s Bench requesting the second claim be dismissed or struck under CPN7. The Appellant asserted the second Action was duplicative of the first and an abuse of process. Subsequently, the Chambers Judge held the circumstances did not justify applying the CPN7 procedure. He found that CPN7 did not apply because the second claim was “not, on its face, frivolous, vexatious, or an abuse of process”.

On Appeal, the Appellant argued the Chambers Judge erred by failing to consider that the second Action was duplicative of the first. The Court found that the Chambers Judge identified and considered the issue of duplication, noting that the second claim was not evidently an abuse of process on its face. The second claim added a new Defendant and new causes of action. It was also filed to pre-empt any limitation defences. Further, the Respondent applied to consolidate the two Actions to avoid a multiplicity of proceedings. The Chambers Judge did not err in finding that this was not an exceptional case warranting the application of CPN7.