ACQ/29/2001, 9 September 2003. Claimant (M) held a lease on a nightclub compulsorily purchased by I and sought compensation for the extinguishment of its business. CA dismissed I's appeal against a LT decision, on a preliminary issue, that M had not breached its lease ([2003] EWCA Civ 160, X122498). Before the preliminary hearing M disclosed accounts indicating that the business was carried out by M's wholly owned subsidiary M F Clubs and Live Ltd (C) rather than M itself. Prior to the substantive hearing I asked M to accept that claim for total extinguishment was misconceived, that only C could make such a claim, and that C had not made reference to the LT. M claimed that, prior to the preliminary issue hearing, the parties had agreed a statement of facts and maintained that I could not be released from the this agreement. M asserted that there had been an abuse of process by I in raising the Clubs issue at a late stage of the proceedings and after the hearing of the preliminary issue. "Held" that LT did have jurisdiction to refuse to allow I to raise the Clubs issue but was entitled to use its discretion in allowing I to raise the matter and dismissed M's claim that it was an abuse of process.