Res judicata Definition

GLOSSARY

Published by a UU��ֱ�� Dispute Resolution expert

What does Res judicata mean?

Latin for the matter has been decided. At common law, once a court has made a decision, the matter cannot be re-opened once the time limit for appealing or the relevant limitation period has expired.

A res judicata is a decision by a judge or tribunal which disposes, with finality, of a matter decided so that it cannot be re-litigated by those bound by the judgment, except on appeal. There are ome statutory exceptions.

General

Latin for the matter has been decided. At common law, once a court has made a decision, the matter cannot be re-opened once the time limit for appealing or the relevant limitation period has expired.

View the related checklists about Res judicata

Bringing new proceedings after summary judgment or strike out—checklist

Bringing new proceedings after summary judgment or strike out—checklist For guidance on summary judgment and strike out generally, see: Summary judgment and strike out—overview, which includes specific guidance on responding to an application for summary judgment or strike out, see Practice Note: Strike out and summary judgment applications—how to respond. Amendments to CPR Part 24 and CPR PD 24—1 October 2023 Practitioners should note that the CPR provisions relevant to summary judgment were amended with effect from 1 October 2023. CPR Part 24 was substituted and CPR PD 24 was revoked. The changes were intended to simplify the rules, and do not materially alter the substantive law or practice. The numbering and location of some provisions is changed. Accordingly, authorities which pre-date the 1 October 2023 amendments may include reference to the previous provisions and numbering. References in this Checklist are to the wording of CPR Part 24 as currently in force. For tables showing the destination of the old provisions and the derivation of the new provisions, see Practice Note: Summary judgment—CPR Part...

Ending a claim—checklist

Ending a claim—checklist How can litigation be brought to an end? There are a number of ways in which litigation can be ended. These include: Action Further guidance Admissions under CPR 14 which could effectively bring the dispute to an end Practice Note: Admissions Jurisdiction—the court may not have the jurisdiction to determine the matter, finding for example, that it should be determined by another country, by arbitration, etc Practice Note: Challenging court jurisdiction—overview, and then more detailed guidance on various aspects of this topic, including Practice Notes:Challenging court jurisdiction—general principlesChallenging court jurisdiction—has a party submitted to a jurisdiction?Challenging court jurisdiction—application under CPR 11 (timing and extensions of time)Challenging court jurisdiction—application under CPR 11 (general considerations)Also relevant Precedents, including: Draft order for an application to challenge English court jurisdiction, Witness statement in support of an application to challenge English court jurisdiction and Witness statement opposing an application to challenge English court jurisdiction The defendant failing to engage in the proceedings, which results in the court entering a judgment in...

Conduct of employment tribunal hearings—general

FORTHCOMING CHANGE: On 30 January 2023 the Senior President of Tribunals issued a consultation (with a deadline for responses of 27 March 2023, extended to 27 April 2023) on the redrawing of rules and discretions with regard to when and in what circumstances employment tribunals, and also the Employment Appeal Tribunal, should conduct a hearing with just a judge presiding, or alternatively conduct a hearing with one or more lay members in addition to the judge. In July 2024 the Senior President of Tribunals published his response to the consultation with a draft of the Practice Direction which he intends to issue, taking effect on 29 October 2024. The Senior President of Tribunals proposed that there will be no default position for matters that fall to be decided at or following a final employment tribunal hearing and a judge will decide, having regard to the interests of justice and the overriding objective, whether the tribunal is to consist of: (a) a judge sitting alone, or (b) a judge, an employee member,...

Brussels I—parallel proceedings (art 27) [Archived]

Brussels I—parallel proceedings (art 27) [Archived] ARCHIVED: This Practice Note has been archived and is not maintained. This Practice Note explains what parallel proceedings are, as set out in Regulation (EC) 44/2001, Brussels I together with their impact on the courts dealing with these types of proceedings. The requirements to show that parallel proceedings exist are explained and examples of how they have been applied in practice are provided. Note: since 10 January 2015 Brussels I has been repealed in its entirety and replaced by Brussels I (recast). However, transitional arrangements have been put in place. For information on those arrangements and whether Brussels I provisions still apply to the matter you are dealing with, see Practice Note: E&W Brussels I (recast)—application and exclusions. What are parallel proceedings? Parallel proceedings are: • proceedings are brought in two or more EU Member States • the proceedings run concurrently, and • the proceedings involve: ◦ the same parties ◦ the same causes of action Practical consideration: in terms of what the...

Discover our 138 Practice Notes on Res judicata

Where a claim has been stayed because the respondent company is in administration, is the respondent nevertheless required to submit an ET3 (within the usual timeframe), or can the respondent wait for the stay to be lifted before submitting the ET3?

Where a claim has been stayed because the respondent company is in administration, is the respondent nevertheless required to submit an ET3 (within the usual timeframe), or can the respondent wait for the stay to be lifted before submitting the ET3? Paragraph 43(6) of Schedule B1 to the Insolvency Act 1986 (IA 1986) provides, so far as relevant, as follows: ‘No legal process may be…continued against [a company in administration] except with the consent of the administrator or with the permission of the court’. The ‘court’ in this instance is, exclusively, the Companies Court and not the Employment Tribunal (ET). It has been confirmed by the Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) that the ET has no power or discretion to continue with a claim against a company in administration (see Ince Gordon Dadds LLP v Tunstall). That can only be done with the consent of the administrator (which is rarely given, for obvious reasons) or by Order of the Companies Court. The only course available to the...

Does a claimant’s claim continue, where the defendant has a counterclaim, the claimant has failed to file a defence to the counterclaim, or the defendant has applied for default judgment?

Does a claimant’s claim continue, where the defendant has a counterclaim, the claimant has failed to file a defence to the counterclaim, or the defendant has applied for default judgment? This Q&A considers the effect on a claim of default judgment on a counterclaim. This is not a question of procedure as such; it is a matter of res judicata and issue estoppel. As a matter of form, the claim will survive the granting of default judgment on the counterclaim. However, a default judgment is regarded as conclusive of such matters as are strictly necessary for the decision. If the factual connection between the claim and the counterclaim is such that the default judgment on the counterclaim necessarily and with complete precision answers (in the defendant’s favour) the factual questions that the claimant needs to establish in order to prove his claim, then the defendant is able to obtain summary dismissal of the claim. The question was recently discussed in detail, in the case of ...

See the 13 Q&As about Res judicata

Arbitration weekly highlights—31 October 2024

This week's edition of Arbitration weekly highlights includes: coverage of arbitration-related decisions from the English courts, Hong Kong, France and the USA, and updates from UNCTAD, the IBA, ADIAC, ICSID, SCC, TNI and the Indian government in relation to the Draft Arbitration and Conciliation (Amendment) Bill. All this, and more in our weekly highlights.

Multi-forum proceedings dismissed on grounds of res judicata (Tumpuan Megah Development v ING Bank and OW Bunker Far East)

Arbitration analysis: The Commercial Court has dismissed proceedings brought by Tumpuan Megah Development (TMD) against OW Bunker Far East (OWB) and ING Bank (ING), finding that the claim was precluded by findings in a previous LMAA arbitral award between the parties. In doing so, the court emphatically confirmed that, so long as an arbitral award remains unchallenged, it will have preclusive effect on later proceedings that seek to set up a factual case inconsistent with its conclusions. It did not matter that there were foreign proceedings underway in relation to that award or that there may yet have been a challenge to the award’s validity in a subsequent action for recognition or enforcement. The decision is a helpful guide to the circumstances in which the findings in an arbitral award can be re-opened in later litigation by the unsuccessful party, and what that party can do to avoid the preclusive effect of an adverse award. Written by Can Yeginsu, barrister and arbitrator at 3 Verulam Buildings.

Read the latest 397 News articles on Res judicata

Speed up all aspects of your legal work with tools that help you to work faster and smarter. Win cases, close deals and grow your business–all whilst saving time and reducing risk.

Case studies

"I would say that the amount of time I take to draft a good, comprehensive submission has been cut down by at least 60 to 70%. Having all these sources, commentary and journals at my fingertips is brilliant."

ParrisWhittaker

Access all documents on Res judicata

GET ACCESS NOW

Top

Trial

UU��ֱ��

GLOSSARY