Shand v Mishcon de Reya: When Courts Strike Out an Abuse of Process Claim

Key Takeaways

1. English courts can strike out an abuse of process claim if a claimant attempts to relitigate issues already settled or decided.
2. The Henderson v Henderson rule requires claimants to bring their whole case at once, or risk future claims being struck out if they cover old ground.
3. Repeated, unmeritorious claims or shifting factual theories can amount to vexatious litigation and may trigger civil restraint orders.
4. Ignoring repeat or abusive litigation risks ongoing legal costs, management time, and reputational harm to your business.
5. Settlement or discontinuance prevents a claimant from suing again for the same matter.
6. Claims based on fanciful allegations or public information that could have been discovered earlier are likely to be struck out.
7. Businesses can apply to strike out abusive claims at any stage, including before formal service, under strict Civil Procedure Rules.
8. When a claim is struck out as abusive, the defendant can often recover legal costs and may secure an indemnity costs order for persistent misconduct.
9. If you are facing serial or harassing claims, act promptly; our solicitors at Go Legal can help you stop vexatious litigation and protect your reputation. Taking early action to apply for a strike out can help end persistent litigation, save costs, and allow you to focus on running your business.

If you are facing persistent or abusive claims, book a free consultation or call 0207 459 4037 to speak with our commercial litigation solicitors.

When Will a Court Strike Out an Abuse of Process Claim in England & Wales?

“The time has come that the underlying conspiracy theory is given its quietus.” These words from Mr Justice Cotter of the High Court brought a decisive end to a 14-year campaign of litigation against Mishcon de Reya, describing the abuse of process claim as nothing less than unjust harassment and oppression.

Businesses, solicitors, and individuals can find themselves trapped in draining, costly litigation cycles when facing persistent claimants who continually relitigate the same issues, often under new guises. In Shand v Mishcon de Reya LLP [2026] EWHC 2291 (KB), the High Court struck out a repeat claim as an abuse of process after years of exhaustive, repetitive litigation.

This article explains what happened in Shand, the underlying legal principles—including abuse of process and the Henderson v Henderson rule—when courts will intervene, practical steps for businesses facing repeat claims, and how our team at Go Legal can help protect you.

The Shand Case — What Happened

The background

Martina Yvonne Shand’s dispute with Mishcon de Reya began around 2012, initially arising from issues with plumbing and ventilation in her flat. The underlying matter involved claims against her landlord, St James Group Limited (part of the Berkeley Group), with Shand alleging that Mishcon had mishandled her property dispute.

The 2019 Action

In June 2019, Shand began High Court proceedings claiming over £1 million in damages, alleging an “elaborate and wide-ranging conspiracy” involving ten defendants, among them Mishcon de Reya, her landlord, and other legal professionals.

Her 129-page amended claim included allegations of breach of fiduciary duty, deceit, negligence, and conspiracy to cause her distress and block her access to justice.

After partial discontinuance, Shand settled the remainder of her claim in January 2021 by accepting a Part 36 offer. Mishcon compensated her for admitted negligence.

The 2025 Action — a new attempt

In September 2025, Shand brought fresh proceedings against Mishcon (and DWF), now alleging Mishcon acted in a conflict of interest.

Her claim relied on newly “discovered” YouTube videos from 2014 to 2016, claiming these showed Mishcon hosting property events with the President of the London Chamber of Commerce, Tony Pidgley—also Chairman of her landlord’s parent company.

Shand alleged this business connection was “akin to a client relationship,” creating an undisclosed conflict that, she argued, sabotaged her original case.

The court’s response

Mishcon applied to strike out the claim as an abuse of process. Mr Justice Cotter agreed, describing the new claim as unjust harassment and oppression. He found the underlying factual basis “fanciful” and concluded Shand had lost objectivity.

Crucially, the court decided that the alleged conflict could and should have been raised as part of the 2019 proceedings; the YouTube videos were always publicly available. “It is time that the underlying conspiracy theory is given its quietus.”

Abuse of Process — The Legal Principles

What is “abuse of process”?

Abuse of process arises when a litigant uses court proceedings in a way that significantly deviates from proper, fair, and legitimate use—causing unjust cost, distress, or harm to the other side. Under Civil Procedure Rule 3.4(2)(b), the court may strike out a claim if it is an abuse of the process or likely to obstruct the just disposal of proceedings.

The main forms are:

1. Relitigating issues that have already been decided or settled (the Henderson v Henderson rule)
2. Unjust harassment or oppression of the defendant through repeated, groundless, or speculative claims

The Henderson v Henderson Rule

The principle: Parties must bring their whole case in a single set of proceedings. If a matter could and should have been raised earlier but was not, it is usually abusive to bring it later.

As Lord Bingham said in Johnson v Gore Wood [2002] AC 1:

“A party should not be twice vexed in the same matter.”

The court takes a broad, merits-based approach, set out in Dexter v Vlieland-Boddy [2003] EWCA Civ 14, considering:

• Whether the issue could have been raised previously
• Whether raising it now misuses the court process
• Whether the later action amounts to unjust harassment or oppression

Other key factors include:

• Was the earlier case concluded by settlement or judgment? (Aldi Stores v WSP Group [2008])
• Scope of the first claim
• What the claimant knew or should have known at the time
• Whether new evidence was genuinely undiscoverable or concealed
• The impact on the defendant: cost, business focus, reputation
• Whether the claimant is pursuing ever-evolving theories after setbacks

It is not automatic that every subsequent claim is abusive; the claimant must explain why the new claim was not advanced earlier.

Why was the Shand claim struck out?

• The conflict allegation was not new. Shand had already pleaded a potential conflict in 2019. If she suspected misconduct, she could have searched for the videos—these were publicly accessible before her first claim.
• Settlement brings finality. Allowing a new claim on the same facts would undermine the settlement’s effect.
• The latest claim was “fanciful” and unsupported by realistic evidence.
• The prolonged campaign amounted to oppression. After 14 years, Mishcon was entitled to closure.
• Shand’s evolving theories, countering each setback with a new angle, marked her conduct as abusive.

When Will Courts Strike Out Repeat Claims?

Courts will intervene under CPR 3.4(2) when certain factors are present, especially in repeat or vexatious litigation:

• The claimant seeks to litigate issues already decided or settled.
• The new claim closely follows previous claims, just reframed with new arguments.
• Alleged “new evidence” existed previously or was easily discoverable.
• The repeated litigation imposes unfair costs, damages reputation, or drains resources.
• There is evidence of harassment or oppression—especially multiple claims repackaging the same dispute.
• The claimant is a litigant-in-person pursuing a personal agenda rather than a genuine legal remedy.

The court is less likely to strike out if:

• There is truly new, undiscoverable evidence that changes the dispute fundamentally.
• The later claim is against a new defendant.
• The new issues are genuinely different and could not have been raised before.

Practical Steps if You’re Facing Repeat or Abusive Claims

If your business is being targeted by a persistent claimant, immediate and strategic action is crucial:

1. Act early—do not wait for formal service.
   Early strike-out applications, such as in Shand, can stop the claim before it gains momentum or incurs costs.
2. Gather all litigation history.
   Document every previous claim, settlement, court order, and legal argument. Strong evidence of repeat themes makes it easier to prove abuse of process.
3. Apply to strike out under CPR 3.4(2)(b).
   Build your application on overlap with earlier proceedings, lack of new evidence, and the burden imposed.
4. Consider a Civil Restraint Order (CRO).
   Serial, meritless claimants can be restricted from issuing further claims without court permission (for a specified period, or in extreme cases, indefinitely).
5. Recover your costs.
   Courts can order costs on the indemnity basis for abusive litigation, increasing your potential recovery.
6. Take steps to protect your reputation and operations.
   Repeat or publicised unmeritorious claims can harm business reputation. Consider confidentiality and injunction options.

Why This Case Matters for Your Business

The Shand decision delivers five vital lessons for businesses in England & Wales:

1. Courts will step in to end litigation wars. Once you’ve defended or settled a dispute, you have strong grounds to shut down fresh claims over the same issues.
2. “New evidence” must be genuinely new. Public information that could have been found earlier is not a ticket to reopen litigation.
3. Unlimited leniency for litigants-in-person is a myth. Persistent, meritless claims will be stopped, regardless of a claimant’s representation status.
4. Unjust harassment is enough for strike out. Cumulative, abusive litigation will not be tolerated.
5. Settlement closes the door. Judgments and settlements alike bar future claims covering the same facts.

How Go Legal Can Help

At Go Legal, our solicitors support businesses and individuals facing repeat or abusive litigation. Our expertise in defending commercial disputes empowers clients to take control and stop vexatious litigation before it escalates.

• Litigation review: We analyse your case history for evidence to support an early strike-out or anti-suit application.
• Strategic early action: Our team often intervenes before formal service, stopping abusive litigation quickly and efficiently.
• Strike-out applications: We prepare robust, evidence-based strike-out and cost applications under CPR 3.4(2).
• Civil Restraint Orders: Where justified, we seek court orders to restrict serial claimants.
• Costs recovery: We push for maximum cost recovery, including indemnity costs for persistent misconduct.
• Reputation management: We offer advice on confidentiality and urgent reputation-protection measures as needed.
• Fit for complex challenges: Our litigation specialists navigate claims from individuals, companies, and litigants-in-person with experience and care.

Our fixed-fee options for strike-out applications provide transparency, and we offer a free consultation to help you assess your situation.

Conclusion

The Shand v Mishcon de Reya case is a crucial reminder that the courts in England & Wales will protect defendants from abusive, repetitive litigation. After 14 years of litigation and multiple discontinued claims, the High Court struck out Shand’s latest attempt, labelling it “unjust harassment.” This sets a reassuring precedent for businesses under attack from serial claimants.

Key points to remember:

• You must bring your whole case the first time; issues that could have been raised earlier cannot be relitigated.
• Finality matters—the court will not reopen settled or discontinued claims just because a claimant presents them under a new title or using public material as “new evidence.”
• Persistent, meritless claims may result in costs orders or even civil restraint orders against the claimant.

If your business is facing repeat or vexatious claims, the law is on your side.

Contact us at Go Legal for support. Call 0207 459 4037 or book a free consultation. We will assess your case, explain your options, and, where justified, act to strike out abusive claims and recover your costs.