Published on: January 26, 2024 at 12:30 IST
Court: Court of Appeals, United Kingdom
Citation: Greenhalgh V. Mallard (1947)
Honourable Court of Appeals, United Kingdom has held that if the same set of facts may give rise to two or more causes of action, then a person is not allowed to choose and sue upon one cause of action at one time and to reserve the other for subsequent litigation, as it would aggravate the burden of litigation. It is held that subsequent litigation is abuse of its process and barred by the Doctrine of Res Judicata. It is held that the principle of Estoppel Per Rem Judicatam is a rule of evidence. This doctrine is based on two theories : (i) the finality and conclusiveness of judicial decisions for the final termination of disputes in the general interest of the community as a matter of public policy, and (ii) the interest of the individual that he should be protected from multiplication of litigation.
‘… I think that on the authorities to which I will refer it would be accurate to say that res judicata for this purpose is not confined to the issues which the court is actually asked to decide, but that it covers issues or facts which are so clearly part of the subject-matter of the litigation and so clearly could have been raised that it would be an abuse of the process of the court to allow a new proceeding to be started in respect of them.’
This is therefore another and an equally necessary and efficacious aspect of the same principle, for it helps in raising the bar of res judicata by suitably construing the general principle of subduing a cantankerous litigant. That is why this other rule has some times been referred to as constructive res judicata which, in reality, is an aspect or amplification of the general principle.”
Drafted By Abhijit Mishra