‘There has been some uncertainty over the correct approach to the issue of when findings of fact can be re-opened. This was as a direct result of the judgment of Mostyn J in Re RL.’
Becket Chambers, 3rd July 2023
Source: becket-chambers.co.uk
‘A recent decision by the English Court of Appeal confirms the scope of the “doctrine of merger”, which is designed to prevent an abuse of court process by preventing parties from bringing multiple claims in respect of the same cause of action.’
OUT-LAW.com, 12th August 2021
Source: www.pinsentmasons.com
‘The case related to a complaint made against Mr McFadden, that he had inappropriately touched a woman at an anti-austerity march attended by Unite members. A complaint was raised with Unite and Mr McFadden was found to have breached the union’s rules on conduct “in the workplace”. He appealed through the union’s procedures and his appeal was unsuccessful. Thereafter, Mr McFadden made a complaint to the assistant certification officer [“ACO”]. The ACO determined that as the alleged conduct was outside the workplace, in a context where Mr McFadden was not acting as a representative of Unite, nor at an event organised by Unite, the complaint did not pertain to conduct that Unite could discipline him for and consequently the allegation was null and void. The ACO ordered Unite to reinstate McFadden to his positions held prior to the suspension.’
Parklane Plowden, 10th March 2021
Source: www.parklaneplowden.co.uk
‘During January 2021 the Court of Appeal handed down three judgments on appeals relating to strike out applications under CPR 3.4(2)(b): Allsop v Banner Jones Ltd [2021] EWCA Civ 7, PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP v BTI 2014 LLC [2021] EWCA Civ 9 and Tinkler v Ferguson [2021] EWCA Civ 18.’
Ropewalk Personal Injury Blog, 25th February 2021
Source: www.ropewalk.co.uk
‘In Allsop v Banner Jones Ltd and another, the Court of Appeal considered the application of Phosphate Sewage v Molleson to applications to strike out a claim on the basis of abuse of process. The decision is a detailed exploration of the scope of the doctrines of res judicata, collateral attacks of previous decision and abuse of process. As such it is valuable reading to litigators generally and particularly those in the field of professional negligence.’
Hardwicke Chambers, 12th February 2021
Source: hardwicke.co.uk
‘The Supreme Court has unanimously dismissed this appeal addressing whether findings of fact made by the General Court of the European Union (“the General Court”) are binding in subsequent domestic proceedings, under the EU principle of absolute res judicata.’
UKSC Blog, 6th November 2020
Source: ukscblog.com
‘Is it possible to resist an application to amend on the grounds that the new case could and should have been advanced earlier in the same proceedings?’
Wilberforce Chambers, 14th April 2020
Source: www.wilberforce.co.uk
‘A court of appeal decision on a first instance application, where the main issue was whether, given an historic possession order, the landlord could bring fresh possession proceedings.’
Nearly Legal, 24th March 2019
Source: nearlylegal.co.uk
Auzins v Prosecutor General’s Office of the Republic of Latvia [2016] EWHC 802 (Admin)
‘The appellant was arrested in Latvia in connection with four offences of theft. He admitted guilt in relation to some of the offences and was released subject to certain conditions. In breach of those conditions he left Latvia and subsequently came to live in England. He was arrested in Scotland pursuant to a European arrest warrant (“EAW”) issued by the Latvian judicial authority, and extradition proceedings followed in the Sheriff Court. He resisted extradition on health grounds. A letter from the Latvian authorities accepted that the medical treatment available within the Latvian prison system for the treatment of the appellant’s medical problems would be insufficient and incompatible with European guidelines. The court concluded that, while there were no bars to extradition under the section 11(1) of the Extradition Act 2003, the appellant’s physical condition was such that it would be oppressive to extradite him. Three years later, a replacement, second, EAW was issued, reflecting the fact that one of the offences for which extradition had originally been sought had become time barred. The appellant was arrested pursuant to the second EAW in England. Updated evidence from the Latvian authorities showed that the position as to the availability of treatment for the appellant’s conditions had improved in the intervening period. Following a contested hearing, the district judge ordered the appellant’s extradition. The appellant challenged that decision on grounds, inter alia, that the district judge should have discharged him because: (i) the issue of his surrender was res judicata or subject to an issue estoppel on account of his discharge in the earlier Scottish proceedings for substantially the same matters; alternatively, (ii) in seeking his surrender the Latvian authorities were abusing the process of the court.’
WLR Daily, 14th April 2016
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
Dickinson and another v UK Acorn Finance Ltd [2015] EWCA Civ 1194; [2015] WLR (D) 479
‘The fact that a loan the subject of litigation was rendered unenforceable by statute did not mean that a judge was not entitled to determine whether it would be an abuse of process for a party to proceed with its submission that it would be an abuse of process for another party to be permitted to proceed with its claim which was founded on that loan.’
WLR Daily, 25th November 2015
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
‘ Tchenguiz v. Director of the Serious Fraud Office [2014] EWCA Civ 472, 15 April 2014. This judgment is a neat illustration of how important it is to keep the concepts of public law and private law unlawfulness separate – they do not necessarily have the same legal consequences.’
UK Human Rights Blog, 15th April 2014
Source: www.ukhumanrightsblog.com
‘The doctrine of res judicata precluded a complainant who had accepted an award made by the Financial Ombudsman Service from starting legal proceedings to pursue complaints which had already been submitted to the ombudsman service and which the ombudsman had decided. Further, section 228(5) of the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 did not exclude the operation of res judicata.’
WLR Daily, 14th February 2014
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
“In proceedings concerning the alleged invalidity of a community trade mark, departments of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) are not bound by earlier final decisions in opposition proceedings, since no force of res judicata attaches to such decisions.”
WLR Daily, 29th October 2009
Source: www.lawreports.co.uk
Please note once a case has been fully reported in one of the ICLR series the corresponding WLR Daily summary is removed.
Cinpres Gas Injection Ltd v Melea Ltd
Court of Appeal
“Perjury by a witness who had common cause with one of the parties in proceedings could be sufficient to have the judgment set aside as having been obtained by fraud.”
The Times, 29th February 2008
Source: www.timesonline.co.uk
Please note the Times Law Reports are only available free on Times Online for 21 days from the date of publication.
Cinpres Gas Injection Ltd v Melea Ltd [2008] EWCA Civ 9; [2008] WLR (D) 19
“Where an inventor who gave perjured evidence at the trial of his employer’s application for a patent had been more than a mere witness in those proceedings, his fraud should be treated as his employer’s fraud for the purposes of the fraud exception to the doctrine of res judicata.”
WLR Daily, 31st January 2008
Source: www.lawreports.co.uk
Please note once a case has been fully reported in one of the ICLR series the corresponding WLR Daily summary is removed.
© Inner Temple Library 2024