- B. Is it open to the Banks to seek a summary determination that the Respondents are precluded from disputing Relevant Issues?
- C. Is the LCIA Award capable of giving rise to an issue estoppel against the Respondents in circumstances in which the Respondents were not parties to the LCIA Arbitrations?
- C1. Is the test to be applied when determining whether an arbitration award gives rise to an issue estoppel against a non-party in subsequent court proceedings the same as that which applies when determining the effect of a prior court judgment in such circumstances?
- C2. What is the correct test of privity for the purposes of the doctrine of issue estoppel?
- C3. Having regard to the appropriate test, does the Banks’ issue estoppel case meet the requisite standard of arguability?
- D. Are there Relevant Issues arising between the Banks and the Respondents in these proceedings which were determined in the LCIA Arbitrations and, if so, what are they?
- D1. The applicable principles
- D2. Are the Respondents seeking to re-litigate Relevant Issues?
- E. If the relevant test is satisfied, in what circumstances would it nonetheless be open to the Court to permit the Respondents (or any of them) to re-argue the Relevant Issues?
- E1. What is the scope of any exception to the doctrine of issue estoppel?
- E2. Is the exception engaged (or engaged to the requisite degree of arguability) here?
- F. If and to the extent that there is no issue estoppel, would it be an abuse of process for the Respondents to seek to litigate any of the Relevant Issues?
- F1. Can the doctrine of abuse of process be engaged by attempts to litigate issues determined in an arbitration between non-identical parties, and if so in what circumstances?
- F2. Has the Banks’ abuse of process case been established to the requisite degree of arguability?