Blowing hot and cold in litigation: abuse of process, election or approbation and reprobation? BWG v BWF [2020] SGCA 36

Q3 Social Sciences
Dorcas Quek Anderson
{"title":"Blowing hot and cold in litigation: abuse of process, election or approbation and reprobation? BWG v BWF [2020] SGCA 36","authors":"Dorcas Quek Anderson","doi":"10.1080/14729342.2021.1877505","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT This note analyses the Singapore Court of Appeal's decision in BWG v BWF which allowed the adoption of inconsistent positions across related court proceedings against different parties. The decision raises crucial questions on the limits to be imposed on a party's freedom to pursue opposing rights in litigation, and how the doctrines of abuse of process, election by waiver, and approbation and reprobation should be applied. It is argued that the court's application of the abuse of process doctrine obscured the central exercise of assessing all the relevant interests and circumstances. The differing rationales underlying the common law doctrine of election and the equitable doctrine of approbation were also inadequately articulated, resulting in ambivalence concerning why they were deemed inapplicable. Finally, there was a missed opportunity to clarify how the doctrines overlap and yet differ.","PeriodicalId":35148,"journal":{"name":"Oxford University Commonwealth Law Journal","volume":"21 1","pages":"134 - 146"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2021-01-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1080/14729342.2021.1877505","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Oxford University Commonwealth Law Journal","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/14729342.2021.1877505","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"Social Sciences","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

ABSTRACT This note analyses the Singapore Court of Appeal's decision in BWG v BWF which allowed the adoption of inconsistent positions across related court proceedings against different parties. The decision raises crucial questions on the limits to be imposed on a party's freedom to pursue opposing rights in litigation, and how the doctrines of abuse of process, election by waiver, and approbation and reprobation should be applied. It is argued that the court's application of the abuse of process doctrine obscured the central exercise of assessing all the relevant interests and circumstances. The differing rationales underlying the common law doctrine of election and the equitable doctrine of approbation were also inadequately articulated, resulting in ambivalence concerning why they were deemed inapplicable. Finally, there was a missed opportunity to clarify how the doctrines overlap and yet differ.
诉讼中的忽冷忽热:滥用程序、选举还是认可和谴责?BWG诉BWF【2020】SGCA 36
本文分析了新加坡上诉法院在BWG诉BWF案中的判决,该判决允许在针对不同当事人的相关法院诉讼中采取不一致的立场。这一决定提出了一些关键问题,包括对当事人在诉讼中追求对立权利的自由施加的限制,以及滥用程序、弃权选举、批准和谴责等原则应如何适用。有人认为,法院对滥用程序原则的适用模糊了评估所有相关利益和情况的核心工作。普通法的选举原则和公平的认可原则所依据的不同理由也没有得到充分阐明,导致人们对为什么认为它们不适用产生矛盾心理。最后,我们错过了一个澄清两种学说如何重叠又如何不同的机会。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
0.30
自引率
0.00%
发文量
7
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信