In this case, it would be unjust if
the issue estoppel did not apply to the second and third applications.
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.
Then came Edgerton v Edgerton and Shaikh [2012] EWCA Civ 181, [2012] All ER (D) 172 (Feb) in which Lord Neuberger MR again — in passing, only, on this occasion — consigned a family lawyer's assumption to the same dustbin as «Hildebrand rules»: «[36][The judge below] thought that, as the court in the ancillary relief proceedings had an inquisitorial, or quasi-inquisitorial (as Thorpe LJ put it in Parra v Parra [2002] EWCA Civ 1886, para 22), role, the normal rules as to
issue estoppel did not apply.
Not exact matches
Baron J reviewed the authorities on
issue estoppel and found herself in agreement with Re B and another (minors)(care proceedings: evidence)[1997] 1 FLR 285, [1997] 2 All ER 29 and Mrs Justice Hale (as she then was) that
issue estoppel in children cases, in any strict sense,
does not apply.
Their view accords with my own in any event but, in my judgement, therefore, the decisions of the English Courts
do create an
issue estoppel against the Defendant in raising the argument that the waiver is insufficient where recognition, enforcement and execution are concerned.
The court noted a change in the law
did not trigger the «special circumstance» exception to
issue estoppel, and found there was no basis to exercise its discretion to bar the application of
issue estoppel in this case.
Excluding discretion from the
issue estoppel analysis
does not necessarily exclude it entirely.
The
estoppel certificate
issued by the condominium corporation
did not mention the illegal third floor.
In case of Bhanukumar Jain Versus Archana Kumar (2005) 1 SCC 787 the Supreme Court has held that a cause of action
estoppel arises wherein two different proceedings identical
issues are raised in which event the later proceedings between the same parties shall be dealt with similarly as was
done in the previous proceedings.
It is submitted that a cause of action
estoppel arises where in two different proceedings identical
issues were raised, in which event the later proceedings between the same Parties shall be dealt with similarly as was
done in the previous proceedings.
Closing agent
issued a HUD statement missing home owner association fee saying she didn't order an
Estoppel!