Substitution application was contrary to rule precluding director or shareholder from representing company in legal proceedings

Two appeals from High Court proceedings – substitution applications – appellant sought assignments of the proceedings by the Company to him to enable him to continue the proceedings in circumstances where the Company can no longer afford a legal team – background facts - first appeal – rule precludes a director or shareholder from representing a company in legal proceedings - an abuse of process, - champertous and/or savours of champerty and is thus contrary to public policy and invalid – first assignment – High Court decision - first assignment was entered for the sole purpose of circumventing the rule in Battle, and as such was an abuse of the process and invalid – champertous – Court’s core findings barely addressed - principle that impecuniosity does not constitute an “exceptional circumstance” - trial judge was entitled to make the findings that he did – court correctly applied rule in Battle to the circumstances of this case in coming to the conclusion that the first assignment was an abuse of process – trial judge did not err in finding that the first assignment does not savour of champerty – appeal dismissed – High Court awarded costs on solicitor and client basis – open to the Court to make that finding - scurrilous, highly defamatory and without foundation accusations – High Court orders affirmed – second appeal - second assignment - second substitution application – inconsistency of position – judgment of the High Court - res judicata - principles applicable to issue estoppel - satisfied that a decision to refuse to allow a third party to be substituted as plaintiff in proceedings constituted a “final” decision - fact that the 2018 judgment is under appeal to the Court of Appeal does not deprive it of its quality of a ‘final’ judgment for the purposes of res judicata – grounds of appeal not relevant to the core findings of the Court – re-litigating a previous issue – first decision was final - appeal did not deprive it of its quality of finality - cannot point to any material difference between the two substitution application – ample evidence before the court on which Court could conclude that the issue which arose for determination on the second substitution application was not materially different from that which had been determined – cross appeal – appeal against decision to award costs on party and party basis and not “solicitor and own client” basis – should have awarded solicitor and own client costs to mark the court’s disapproval on the basis that the second substitution application was a repeat abuse of the process - standard of review to be applied by an appellate court when considering an appeal in respect of a costs order - whether Court failed to take into account relevant factors in declining to award costs “solicitor and client” basis - took into account all relevant matters - cannot be said that he erred in principle or in any way in the exercise of that discretion – costs order affirmed –