Challenge to appointment of receiver is an abuse of process

Application to dismiss the plaintiff’s proceedings, pursuant to Order 19, r. 28 of the Rules of the Superior Courts or pursuant to the Court’s inherent jurisdiction, on the grounds that they disclose no reasonable cause of action and/or are frivolous or vexatious and/or are an abuse of process - primary claim in the plaintiff’s statement of claim is that the defendant acted as a receiver of a supermarket premises (the ‘premises’) pursuant to an invalid Deed of Appointment which was executed by a financial institution on the 21st July, 2014, and which also purported to appoint the defendant as a receiver the premises and to three other properties - defendant provided a sworn affidavit which provides compelling evidence that the Deed of Appointment in this case was in fact a validly executed - no evidence has been provided by the plaintiff to controvert this averment - the issue before the Court, namely the validity of the appointment of the defendant as a receiver under the Deed of Appointment has already been determined by the Courts on two occasions - since the plaintiff is not the owner of the premises it is questionable whether he has locus standi to bring the proceedings - application of defendant to dismiss plaintiff's proceedings granted - court recommends application for an Isaac Wunder order should there be any further attempts at relitigating issues which are related to the borrowings and the enforcement of security in this case.