A
B!
ci
D
ΕΙ
F
G
indeed an abuse of process of the court. It is using the
machinery of the court for purposes for which it should not be
used.
It is a situation where, technically, Mr. Osman can
properly identify, in the case of each application, some piece
of evidence which he can allege is fresh evidence and that he
can perhaps allege also amounts to a fresh ground. But
before evidence can be regarded as fresh evidence or before it
can be said that there are fresh grounds, in my judgment,
there must be some prospect of the fresh evidence or the fresh
grounds which are relied upon having some prospect of
producing a different result than has hitherto been produced
by the previous applications.
application was made, relying on the sort of matters to which
I have made reference, in my judgment there was no prospect
whatsoever of the court taking a different view from the view
taken hitherto.
Certainly by the time this
Therefore it seems to me that not only should this
application be dismissed on the merits, the merits which I
have sought to set out in the course of this judgment, but
that also this application should be regarded as one which the
court would strike out as being an abuse of the process of the
court.
That leaves it for me to consider the cross-application
which seeks to suggest that both this application and future
applications should be the subject of a two-stage procedure.
H
29