Proposed plaintiff is estopped from bringing a second substitution application

High Court – Practice and Procedure - Application to substitute Plaintiff – shareholder to be substituted for corporate plaintiff – Previous application brought by proposed plaintiff which was rejected by the court in 2018 – 2018 judgment under appeal – second assignment of proceedings to proposed plaintiff – second application to substitute plaintiff - whether res judicata – whether issue estoppel arises – whether champerty arises – rule in Battle v. Irish Art Promotion Centre Ltd – corporate plaintiff has to be represented by qualified legal practitioner – solicitors for company came off record in March 2018 – issue estoppel – the rule in Henderson v Henderson – whether there is a judgment by a court which involves a final and conclusive decision – refusing to substitute the plaintiff was a final decision even at interlocutory stage – whether the two assignments of the proceedings gave rise to two separate issues – High Court previously decided that the assignment was a device to avoid the requirement that the company be legally represented and savoured of champerty – same circumstances arises on the evidence – attempt to avoid requirement that the company be legally represented – proposed plaintiff estopped from bringing a second substitution application.