The doctrine of res judicata

A res judicata is a decision given by a judge or tribunal with jurisdiction over the cause of action and the parties, which disposes, with finality, of a matter decided so that it cannot be re-litigated by those bound by the judgment, except on appeal.

The purpose of the doctrine is to provide finality to litigation and to protect parties from being vexed by the same matter twice.

Final judgments by default or consent are included within this definition, but not decisions on procedural grounds and decisions which are not final in any sense.

‘Res judicata’ is most closely associated with the legal principle of 'cause of action estoppel' (see below), which operates to prevent a cause of action being raised or challenged by either party in subsequent proceedings where the cause of action in the later proceedings is identical to that in the earlier proceedings, the latter having been between the same parties (or their privies), and having involved the same subject matter. However, res judicata also embraces 'issue estoppel', a term that is used to describe a

To view the latest version of this document and thousands of others like it, sign-in with LexisNexis or register for a free trial.

TAKE A FREE TRIAL

Latest Dispute Resolution News

Court compels disclosure in £500,000 phone crypto-theft case

Law360, London: The victim of a phone-snatching in London has secured a court order compelling four companies offering digital asset exchange services to disclose documents tied to an alleged fraud perpetrated against them after £500,000 (US$667,000) in cryptocurrency was drained from his account.

The 11th Edition of the King’s Bench Guide has been published

Notable updates to the 10th Edition (published April 2024) include:

Tycoon’s son loses challenge to £3m Howard Kennedy Bill

Law360, London: The son of a diamond tycoon accused of swindling US$1bn from banks lost his application for a court-ordered review of his legal bills from Howard Kennedy on 25 April 2025 as the High Court said he knew of the climbing costs linked to his international fraud case.

Jurisdictional challenges from abroad and the duty of full and frank disclosure (Okuashvili and others v JSC Tbilisi Tobacco and others)

Dispute Resolution analysis: In Okuashvili v JSC Tbilisi Tobacco, the High Court heard a complex jurisdictional challenge in respect of two separate sets of proceedings brought against various individuals and companies located in or with a nexus to Georgia. The judgment, which resulted in the court ultimately declining jurisdiction over almost all of the claims against all but one defendant, provides a helpful summary of the law applicable to the granting of permission to serve out of the jurisdiction under CPR 6.36 and CPR 6.37. It also serves as a timely reminder to practitioners of the importance of compliance with the duty of full and frank disclosure which arises in the context of without notice applications such as an application for permission to serve a claim out of the jurisdiction, and of the factors the court will take into consideration when determining whether or not there has been valid service out of the jurisdiction. Written by Emily Lodge, senior associate at Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan UK LLP.

View Dispute Resolution by content type :

News