Abuse of process - action by company alleging professional negligence - later action by majority shareholder for personal losses not struck outJohnson v Gore Wood & Co (a firm): HL (Lord Bingham of Cornhill, Lord Goff of Chieveley, Lord Cooke of Thorndon, Lord Hutton and Lord Millett): 14 December 2000The plaintiff was the majority shareholder of a company.

On behalf of the company, he instructed the defendants, solicitors, to serve notice to exercise an option to purchase land.

The vendor disputed the validity of the notice served, and, although an order for specific performance was made against him, the company had suffered substantial financial loss by the time the conveyance was completed.

It brought proceedings against the defendants alleging professional negligence, and the plaintiff intimated to the defendants that he would also have a claim against them for personal losses arising out of the same matters that he would pursue in due course.

The company's action was compromised for a substantial proportion of the sum claimed.

Subsequently, the plaintiff issued his personal writ, and the defendants applied for it to be struck out as an abuse of process, relying on Henderson v Henderson (1843) 3 Hare 100.

The judge declined to strike it out.

On preliminary issues, he held that the heads of damage pleaded by the plaintiff were not irrecoverable.

The Court of Appeal allowed the defendants' appeal to the extent of striking out the writ.

The plaintiff appealed and the defendants cross-appealed.Roger ter Haar QC and Simon Howarth (instructed by Shoosmiths, Fareham) for the plaintiff.

Alan Steinfeld QC and Elizabeth Ovey (instructed by Beachcroft Wansbroughs) for the defendants.Held, allowing the appeal and dismissing the cross-appeal subject to variation of the Court of Appeal's order (Lord Cooke of Thorndon dissenting in part), that whether an action was an abuse of process as offending against the public interest in the finality of litigation and in a defendant not being vexed twice in the same matter was to be judged broadly on the merits, taking all public and private interests into account; that the crucial question was whether in all the circumstances the plaintiff was abusing or misusing the process of the court; that, on that basis, the plaintiff's action should not be struck out; and that the heads of damage pleaded by the plaintiff were recoverable save for his claims in respect of the diminution in value of his pension and of his majority shareholding in the company in so far as they merely reflected the company's loss and his claims for mental distress and anxiety and for aggravated damages.Per Lord Cooke of Thorndon.

The plaintiff's claims in respect of financial embarrassment and injury to family relationships should go to trial.

(WLR)