Practice – Striking out. The Chancery Division ruled that the claimant in the first claim (P) was barred by cause of action estoppel, issue estoppel and abuse of process from attempting to avoid one of two loans, which the defendant company (APL) in the first claim had granted to him, and that, he was barred on the ground of abuse of process from attempting to avoid the second loan. Further, the court held that alleged defects in APL's claim for possession of one of P's properties were procedural errors and that their rectification would cause no injustice to P.