JSC BTA Bank v Ablyazov and others [2011] EWHC 1136 (Comm), [2011] All ER (D) 81 (May)
It was well established that the pursuit of a claim for a collateral or ulterior purpose might amount to an abuse of the process of the court. There were two recognised types of abuse of process based upon collateral purpose, including seeking a collateral advantage beyond the proper scope of the action. Further, in the light of established authority, no object which a claimant might seek to obtain could be condemned as a collateral advantage if it was reasonably related to the provision of some form of redress for that grievance.
Consequently, a claimant was entitled to seek the defendants’ financial ruin if that would be the consequence of properly prosecuting a legitimate claim. That comment indicated that a purpose would not be regarded as illegitimate if it was no more than the natural consequence of the action succeeding. Where a claimant had two purposes for commencing proceedings, one legitimate and the other sufficiently collateral as to be illegitimate, the question
