This website uses cookies to ensure you get the best experience on our website. Learn more

BCL Law Notes Principles of Civil Procedure Notes

Finality Notes

Updated Finality Notes

Principles of Civil Procedure Notes

Principles of Civil Procedure

Approximately 184 pages

A collection of the best BCL notes the director of Oxbridge Notes (an Oxford law graduate) could find after combing through applications from outstanding students with the highest results in England and carefully evaluating each on accuracy, formatting, logical structure, spelling/grammar, conciseness and "wow-factor". In short, these are what we believe to be the strongest set of BCL notes available in the UK this year. This collection of notes is fully updated for recent exams, also making them...

The following is a more accessible plain text extract of the PDF sample above, taken from our Principles of Civil Procedure Notes. Due to the challenges of extracting text from PDFs, it will have odd formatting:

Finality

See also Appeals (reopening) & Collective redress notes (opt-out / binding opt-in)

The value of certainty

Ampthill Peerage Case (1977) per Lord Wilberforce

  • the need for justice, including certainty & finality, can prevail over need for truth

  • if rights can always be unwound, then are less valuable & creates uncertainty

  • Exceptions

    • Appeals, including out of time

    • Judgments to be attacked on grounds of fraud (at least of a party, if not of witnesses)

    • Extensions of limitation periods for mistake, fraud etc

  • Interests

    • Certainty of rights — favours finality, unless claim based on rights frustrated by factors beyond claimant’s control

    • Access to justice

    • Proportionate use of public & private resources — proportionality can cut both ways, so fact sensitive

    • For defendants, peace from litigation & vexation

    • Public interest in correct outcomes — but time erodes value of evidence

    • Avoiding inconsistent judgments

Rules for avoiding re-litigation

Time limits

Res judicata

  • Same parties cannot relitigate same issue — including (a) cause of action estoppel and (b) issue estoppel

  • Arises only in relation to final judgments — include default & consent judgments

  • Possibly only adversarial litigation — eg child welfare proceedings excluded

  • Can be waived — subject to public interest in overriding objective re fair allocation of resources

  • Applies only to same parties or their privies: Resolution Chemicals

    • Whether new party had interest in subject matter of previous litigation

    • Whether new party was in reality the party to the original proceeding

    • Whether it was just that the new party should be bound by the outcome of the previous litigation

  • Policy

    • Protects due process rights of strangers

    • Judgments inadmissible as evidence in other proceedings: Bairstow

    • Where one party is the same — eg should defendant to several actions on same issue be bound / permitted to relitigate losses or be able to invoke wins against strangers —

      • But parties invest resources in litigation based on value of dispute — not based on prospective claims

      • <> uses court resources, risk of inconsistent judgments

      • Taylor v Nugent — claimant outside group litigation bound by findings

Cause of action estoppel

  • Once cause has been adjudicated, estopped from asserting or denying the cause in subsequent proceedings

    • Even if new argument, new evidence, or change in the law

  • Was considered to be an absolute bar — until Virgin Atlantic (claimant ordered to pay damages for infringement of patent — patent later revoked by EUPO with retrospective effect on grounds of prior use CA: damages still due for cause of action estoppel — SC: damages could be overturned)

    • Dilutes difference with issue estoppel

    • Consequence of concurrent jurisdictions

    • If had happened between two English proceedings?

    • Sumption — validity of patent was decided, but consequences of revocation by EUPO hadn’t been decided

      • But clearly, because EUPO was not in issue — would mean that any subsequent change in law could reopen

    • Neuberger — effect of revocation is retrospective so people are entitled to conduct themselves as though it never existed

—Issue estoppel

  • Parties are bound by findings in subsequent proceedings for separate cause of action between them—

    • If findings essential to final resolution to those proceedings

      • Based in proportionality analysis — if issue wasn’t necessary to resolution for dispute, may not have been fully argued & best evidence presented — so needn’t bar reargument

      • If issues are alternatives and only one succeeds, then may not be blocked by issue estoppel

    • Unless there are ‘special circumstances’, including if —

      • Fresh evidence could not have been obtained without reasonable diligence

      • There has been a material change in the law

Abuse of process — enlarged res judicata

  • Applies if—

    • issue has not been decided but could & should have been decided in earlier proceeding; or

    • Issue...

Buy the full version of these notes or essay plans and more in our Principles of Civil Procedure Notes.