"We constantly have to look at our own supply chain and choose the best value and quality-focused solutions for our offices. That was really the genesis of our switch to ½Û×ÓÊÓƵ."
Harper Mcleod
Access all documents on Res judicata
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.
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.
For our full legal glossary and more legal research sources, register for a free Lexis+ trial
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 CPR Part 24 was substituted and CPR PD 24 was revoked.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...
Glossary—Latin legal terms Despite attempts in recent years to simplify the language used in legal cases, there are still a number of Latin phrases commonly used in personal injury claims. The following Latin phrases are listed in alphabetical order: Latin term Definition Meaning Acta iure imperii Legal acts of public nature Liability of the state for actions or omissions in the exercise of state authority Bona Fide In good faith A Bona Fide agreement is one entered into without intent to deceive Caveat Take care/caution A legal notice to the court to prevent another party taking action without informing the person who gave the notice Compos Mentis Of sound mind Legally fit to conduct the claim De Facto In fact As a matter of fact Ex Gratia As a matter of favour An ex gratia payment is made without any legal or contractual obligation to do so Ex Parte By a party An ex parte application is made to the court by one party in the absence or without...
Discover our 3 Checklists on Res judicata
STOP PRESS: The Employment Tribunal Procedure Rules 2024, SI 2024/1155 (ET Rules 2024) in force from 6 January 2025, replace the ET Rules 2013 set out in Schedule 1 to the Employment Tribunals (Constitution and Rules of Procedure) Regulations 2013, SI 2013/1237 from that date. The Employment Tribunals (Procedure Rules) (Consequential Amendments) Regulations 2024, SI 2024/1156, also in force 6 January 2025, primarily amend the Employment Tribunals (Constitution and Rules of Procedure) Regulations 2013, SI 2013/1237 to facilitate the coming into force of the ET Rules 2024. Presidential Guidance and Practice Directions will be amended to reflect the new rules in due course.For a destination table showing how the ET Rules 2024 correspond to the ET Rules 2013, and incorporating notes on the changes, see Practice Note: Employment tribunal rules of procedure 2024—destination table. This Practice Note will be updated in light of the ET Rules 2024 as soon as possible.STOP PRESS: On 30 January 2023 the Senior President of Tribunals issued a consultation (with a deadline for responses of...
Case C- 586/18 Buonotourist v Commission and Case C- 587/18 CSTP Azienda della Mobilità v Commission [Archived] CASE HUB ARCHIVED—this archived case hub reflects the position at the date of the judgments of 4 March 2020; it is no longer maintained. See further: timeline and relevant/related cases. Case facts Outline Appeals of the General Court judgments in Cases T- 185/16 and T- 186/15 which dismissed actions for annulment of the Commission’s decisions in State aid Cases SA.35842 and SA.35843—PSO compensation for Buonotourist and CSTP Azienda della Mobilità . Latest developments On 4 March 2020, the Court of Justice issued its judgments in which it dismissed the appeals in their entirety. Parties Appellants:• Buonotourist S.r.L. (Buonotourist). Buonotourist is a private company providing local public transport services based on regional and municipal concessions. More specifically, Buonotourist operates a network of bus routes as concessionaire of the Italian region of Campania (the Region) throughout the period under review covering approximately 1.8m km per year• Consorzio Salernitano Trasporti Pubblici...
Discover our 144 Practice Notes on Res judicata
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 ...
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...
See the 13 Q&As about Res judicata
The Supreme Court unanimously dismissed the appeal, holding that the doctrine of merger is confined to ‘coercive judgments’ and does not extend to declaratory judgments. Jack Mitchell of Old Square Chambers comments on the implications of the judgment.
IP analysis: This judgment considers CPR Part 19 representative actions in the context of copyright infringement claims, particularly those that involve alleged infringement of a very large number of works owned by different entities. The court decided that one Claimant, Thomas M Barwick Inc (Barwick), could not act as a representative for a class of individuals (who had licensed copyright works on similar terms to Getty, with the other claimants being members of the Getty corporate group) due to an unclear class definition and issues with how the claim would be case managed. The judgment emphasises the necessity of a clear, outcome-independent class definition and a common interest among class members under CPR 19.8. The court also dismissed an informal application under CPR 19.3 to proceed without joinder of all interested parties, stating there was insufficient evidence to address whether there was potential prejudice to the defendants, though it did not shut out a further application under CPR 19.3 supported by appropriate evidence, and such an application was not precluded...
Read the latest 411 News articles on Res judicata
**Trials are provided to all ½Û×ÓÊÓƵ content, excluding Practice Compliance, Practice Management and Risk and Compliance, subscription packages are tailored to your specific needs. To discuss trialling these ½Û×ÓÊÓƵ services please email customer service via our online form. Free trials are only available to individuals based in the UK, Ireland and selected UK overseas territories and Caribbean countries. We may terminate this trial at any time or decide not to give a trial, for any reason. Trial includes one question to LexisAsk during the length of the trial.
0330 161 1234