The applicants sought further relief in an ongoing Commercial List proceeding involving the appointment of a manager over several corporations.
A respondent argued that the court was functus officio because the earlier order appointing the manager was final, invoking cause of action estoppel.
The court rejected this argument, emphasizing that receivership or management orders are inherently ongoing and include come‑back clauses allowing parties to seek further directions.
The judge held that such orders are intended to function as a “living declaration,” and that additional relief or amendments to the application could be considered without requiring a new proceeding.
The preliminary objection was dismissed and the court retained jurisdiction to hear further matters in the proceeding.
