Abuse of process is a doctrine in English law that allows the court to stay or strike out proceedings where the court’s processes are being misused in a way that would be unjust or unfair. Although applied sparingly, it is an important tool to protect the integrity of the justice system and ensure that litigation is conducted properly.

The modern foundation of the doctrine is found in Hunter v Chief Constable of the West Midlands Police [1982] AC 529, where Lord Diplock emphasised that the court has an inherent jurisdiction to prevent its procedures being used for purposes for which they were not intended. Abuse of process is concerned not with whether a case is likely to succeed on its merits, but with whether the very act of bringing or continuing the proceedings is improper.

Abuse of process can arise in several recognised categories. One example is collateral purpose, where a party brings proceedings not to obtain the relief the court can properly grant, but to achieve some ulterior or tactical aim. Another category concerns repetitive or duplicative litigation, such as attempting to relitigate issues that have already been decided. Although English law does not have a strict doctrine of “issue estoppel” identical to res judicata in other jurisdictions, principles developed in cases like Henderson v Henderson (1843) 3 Hare 100 prevent parties from raising claims or arguments that should have been brought earlier.

A further important branch of abuse concerns delay. In Jameel v Dow Jones & Co Inc [2005] QB 946, the Court of Appeal struck out a defamation claim because the resources of the court should not be wasted on litigation that served no legitimate purpose. This reflects a broader consideration: proceedings should only continue where they yield a real benefit proportionate to the cost and time required.

The Human Rights Act 1998 has also shaped the doctrine. In Attorney General’s Reference (No 2 of 2001) [2004] UKHL 43, the House of Lords held that a stay may be justified where delay breaches the defendant’s Article 6 right to a fair trial, but only where a fair trial is no longer possible.

Ultimately, the test is highly fact-specific. The court must balance fairness to the parties with the public interest in maintaining the proper use of judicial resources. A stay is a remedy of last resort, granted only where no lesser measure could cure the injustice. Abuse of process therefore acts as a safeguard, ensuring that litigation remains fair, efficient, and aligned with the proper purposes of the civil and criminal courts.