Res judicata applies where there is a final judgment on the merits, the same parties are involved in the first and second case, and the same causes of action are involved in the cases.
Res judicata applied to claims that an injured worker discovered when she deposed her doctor after the Workers» Comp ensation Commission's denial of her initial claims.
This decision confirms that the principles of
res judicata apply to professional disciplinary proceedings.
Not exact matches
In his Dictionary of Legal Usage, Bryan Garner explains that collateral estoppel
is «a miniature of
res judicata: the former
applies to issues, the latter to entire claims or lawsuits.»
It held that
res judicata did not
apply and a valuation officer can alter a rating list when he becomes aware of a material change in circumstances because he
is under a duty to maintain an accurate list.
The principle of
res judicata would
apply here, pursuant to which the matter already decided would
be resolved in favour of the previous English judgment, in the interest of judicial certainty.
The principle of
res judicata is applied by the English court equally in cases where the issue has already
been decided by a competent court in a foreign jurisdiction.
In general, the English common law principles of
res judicata and issue estoppel
apply to arbitrations sited in England and Wales.
If I
am wrong, there
are special circumstances not to
apply res judicata for to do so would cause a real injustice to the plaintiff.
Whether issue estoppel or cause of action estoppel
is applicable, at the end of the day the court must determine whether it should exercise its discretion to bar the action by reason of
res judicata or whether there
are exceptional or special circumstances that should
apply.
Enmax Energy Corp. v. TransAlta Generation Partnership 2015 ABCA 383 Arbitration — Estoppel Summary: The appellant appealed a chambers judge's decision where he held that the parties to an arbitration
were not bound by a prior arbitration award involving the same parties, that a party (in this case, the respondent)
was not estopped from taking certain positions in the current arbitration as a result of the prior arbitration decision, and that the doctrines of
res judicata and issue estoppel did not
apply to arbitration awards.