Legal Dictionary

The Law Dictionary for Everyone

Res Judicata

The doctrine of res judicata is similar to the criminal law concept of double jeopardy , but in a civil law setting. Res judicata bars any party to a civil lawsuit from suing again on the same claim or issue that has previously been decided by the court. This includes any issue that was heard and decided in the first lawsuit, even if the subsequent lawsuit attempts to state different reasons the party should prevail. To explore this concept, consider the following Res Judicata definition.

Definition of Res Judicata

reez joo-di- key -tuh

  • A case that has been decided by a court of competent jurisdiction , and not subject to re- litigation by the same parties.

1684-1695       Latin  (a thing adjudicated; a judged matter)

What is the Doctrine of Res Judicata

The Double Jeopardy Clause of the Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution protects individuals accused of committing a crime from being put on trial a second time after the matter has been judged. In the civil law arena there is a need to prevent people who are not happy with the outcome of their civil lawsuit from re-filing the same matter again, hoping to get a different result.

The doctrine of res judicata addresses this issue, as it bars any party to a civil lawsuit from seeking to have the matter retried once a judgment has been issued by the court. This applies whether the party wishing a new trial has new evidence to present, or attempts to state a different reason for his claim for damages for the same violation of his rights.

Res Judicata vs. Collateral Estoppel

There is a similar legal doctrine that bars a party to a legal action from seeking to have an issue within a case re-decided after the issue has been formally decided by a judge , or in some other legal proceeding, in a previous case. This doctrine is referred to as “ collateral estoppel ,” or “ estoppel by record.” In collateral estoppel, the subsequent lawsuit involves a different cause of action , and some or all of the parties to the previous suit. While this is allowed, the action is bound by decisions of fact, or of matters of law, made by the judge in the original suit.

Res judicata differs in that it restricts the re-trial of the entire civil matter, rather than just judicial decisions on small, yet important, issues within the original case. The difference between res judicata and collateral estoppel then becomes a question of whether the court is being asked to make a judgment on an issue , or on a claim .

An issue , which may be subject to collateral estoppel, is a fact or question of law that was specifically disputed in a previous case. This might include something like a dispute as to the authenticity of an email used to prove one party’s case in a lawsuit.

Example of issue preclusion in collateral estoppel:

Jane sued Matthew, her supervisor at work, for sexually harassing her, causing her to quit her job. During the trial, Jane provided copies of email communications from Matthew, as evidence. Matthew argued that the emails were not real, but after considering his argument, the judge decided the emails were real, and could be submitted as evidence.

A few months after the trial, Jane filed a lawsuit against her employer for failing to take action when she complained about Matthew’s sexual harassment . If the employer attempted to claim that the emails Jane wants to submit as evidence are not genuine, the issue would fall under collateral estoppel. The issue of the authenticity of the emails was already decided in Jane’s previous lawsuit against Matthew, and so the court cannot re-decide the issue.

A claim , which may be subject to res judicata , is the actual basis for a lawsuit. Res judicata applies when a litigant attempts to file a subsequent lawsuit on the same matter, after having received a judgment in a previous case involving the same parties. In many jurisdictions this applies not only to the specific claims made in the first case, but also to related claims that could have been made during the same case.

Example of claim preclusion in res judicata :

Nathaniel was injured when he was rear-ended while waiting at a stoplight. After seeking medical treatment, Nathaniel files a civil lawsuit seeking reimbursement for his medical expenses, as well as for his time off work while he recuperated. The judge decides in Nathaniel’s favor, and orders the other driver to pay Nathaniel’s medical bills, missed work, and pain and suffering.

A couple of months later, Nathaniel realizes that he cannot afford to repair the damages his car sustained in the accident. He files a second lawsuit, asking that the other driver be ordered to pay for the $4,000 repairs. In many jurisdictions, Nathaniel’s second claim (for car repairs) would be dismissed, as he could have, and should have, brought the claim up during the original lawsuit. It is the plaintiff ’s responsibility to ensure all claims resulting from the same incident are brought up and tried together.

Requirements for Res Judicata

The principle of res judicata has its roots in the Seventh Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, which addresses the finality of judgments rendered in a civil jury trial. The text provides that “… no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise reexamined in any Court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law .”

Although this text specifies that no fact previously decided can be brought up later, it actually pertains to both res judicata and collateral estoppel. Once a jury has rendered a verdict in a civil trial, it cannot be changed by another court, except under very specific conditions. Those conditions include reversible errors made by the court or the jury in the original trial, and they may be taken before an appellate court. This is claim preclusion, or res judicata .

The courts have also maintained that an official ruling or decision on any fact of a case during litigation cannot be re-decided in another matter related to the same parties and incident. This is issue preclusion, or collateral estoppel.

There are certain elements that must be present in order for a litigant’s claim of res judicata to be considered valid. The party claiming res judicata must show to the court the following:

  • The specific cause of action in the prior lawsuit
  • The specific issue or fact that was addressed and decided in the prior lawsuit
  • The identities of the parties to the prior lawsuit
  • The designation or position of the parties in the previous lawsuit (which parties were plaintiffs, and which were defendants)
  • Whether the judgment on the previous lawsuit was final
  • Whether all parties to the previous lawsuit were given full and fair opportunity to be heard on the issue

Purpose of Designation of Parties

The purpose of specifying the position or role of each party to the previous lawsuit is to determine whether the parties hold the same or different positions in the new lawsuit.

For example:

Melanie filed a civil lawsuit on behalf of her elderly mother, who was swindled out of several thousand dollars by her landlord, Hank. Prior to, and during the drawn-out litigation, Hank engaged in a campaign of smearing Melanie’s reputation, as well as her mother’s, by posting derogatory and deceitful comments on social media. He even went so far as to call Melanie’s employer to call her a trouble-making thief. At trial, the judge ruled in favor of the plaintiff, Melanie’s mother, awarding her every penny Hank had cheated her out of.

A few weeks after the trial, Melanie files a civil lawsuit for defamation of character, basing her claim on the libelous and slanderous comments Hank had made publicly about her. At trial, Hank may argue that Melanie cannot sue him based on res judicata , as she had already received a judgment on her mother’s case. Hank would be mistaken, however, as in the new lawsuit, Melanie has shifted roles. In the first lawsuit, Melanie acted on behalf of her mother, meaning Melanie herself was not a party to the case. In this new case, Melanie is suing on her own behalf. Res judicata therefore does not apply.

Example of Res Judicata in Real Estate Fraud Case

In 1999, Anita Davis loaned over $500,000 to several individuals who functioned as a real property investment company, for the purpose of purchasing several properties, and fixing them up for resale. Davis learned that the company had falsely inflated the values of the properties they were to purchase with Davis’ money, and that they had no intention to ever rehabilitate the properties. Davis filed a civil lawsuit claiming the company had defrauded her, and seeking damages to the tune of nearly $1 million. At trial, the judge dismissed Davis’ claim with prejudice , as she had not sufficiently proven her case.

Two years later, Davis filed a new lawsuit against the same investment company, claiming breach of contract , as it had failed to make any payments on the four deed of trust notes they had signed in the original loan transaction. Davis also claimed that, although plaintiffs had surrendered the properties to her, she spent a great deal of money to make improvements to the properties, but ultimately incurred a loss after the properties were sold.

In the new lawsuit, Davis requested over $164,000 in damages, plus interest, attorney’s fees, and other costs of suing the defendants. The defendants requested that the Court dismiss her lawsuit with a plea of res judicata , arguing that she was barred from bringing this claim by res judicata , because her prior claim for fraud had been dismissed with prejudice . Defendants backed up this argument by claiming the facts, accusations, and damages in the breach of contract case were the same as those in the fraud case. The circuit Court agreed with the defendants, and dismissed Davis’ case with prejudice.

Davis appealed her case to the state of Virginia Supreme Court, which affirmed the requirements of res judicata . The Court also reiterated that the party claiming the defense of res judicata must prove, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the claim is barred by a prior judgment.

Davis first lawsuit claimed that the defendants committed actual fraud, and that she had relied on their representations of the value of the collateral (the real properties) securing the deeds of trust , which were false. To prove actual fraud, a plaintiff must prove to the Court that the defendants intentionally and knowingly made a false representation about a material fact, with the intent to mislead, and that the plaintiff’s damages were due to her reliance on the defendants’ statements.

The Court ruled that Davis’ lawsuit for breach of contract is identified as a separate claim. While the claim for fraud required the plaintiff to prove that the defendants had intent to defraud her, her claim for breach of contract required her to prove:

  • That the deed of trust notes existed
  • The defendants failed to pay the notes as agreed
  • The amount and nature of Plaintiff’s damages based on defendants’ breach of contract

Evidence necessary to proving fraud is not only different from, but irrelevant to, proving a claim of breach of contract. Because irrelevant evidence is not allowed to be presented, the two cases were definitively of separate issues. The Court rejected the defendants’ claim of res judicata , and concluded that the district court had erred in dismissing Davis’ claim for breach of contract.

Related Legal Terms and Issues

  • Civil Lawsuit – A lawsuit brought about in court when one person claims to have suffered a loss due to the actions of another person.
  • Damages – A monetary award in compensation for a financial loss, loss of or damage to personal or real property, or an injury.
  • Defendant – A party against whom a lawsuit has been filed in civil court, or who has been accused of, or charged with, a crime or offense.
  • Dismissed with Prejudice – A lawsuit being dismissed permanently, with no option for the plaintiff to re-file.
  • Fraud – A false representation of fact, whether by words, conduct, or concealment, intended to deceive another.
  • Judgment – A formal decision made by a court in a lawsuit.
  • Jurisdiction – The legal authority to hear legal cases and make judgments; the geographical region of authority to enforce justice.
  • Plaintiff – A person who brings a legal action against another person or entity, such as in a civil lawsuit, or criminal proceedings.
  • Preponderance of Evidence – The belief by a jury or judge that evidence presented by one party in a civil lawsuit is more convincing, or believed to be more truthful, than that presented by the opposing party. In other words, it is more likely than not that such evidence is true.
  • More from M-W
  • To save this word, you'll need to log in. Log In

res judicata

Definition of res judicata

Examples of res judicata in a sentence.

These examples are programmatically compiled from various online sources to illustrate current usage of the word 'res judicata.' Any opinions expressed in the examples do not represent those of Merriam-Webster or its editors. Send us feedback about these examples.

Word History

Latin, judged matter

1693, in the meaning defined above

Dictionary Entries Near res judicata

Cite this entry.

“Res judicata.” Merriam-Webster.com Dictionary , Merriam-Webster, https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/res%20judicata. Accessed 22 Feb. 2024.

Legal Definition

Legal definition of res judicata.

called also claim preclusion

More from Merriam-Webster on res judicata

Britannica.com: Encyclopedia article about res judicata

Subscribe to America's largest dictionary and get thousands more definitions and advanced search—ad free!

Play Quordle: Guess all four words in a limited number of tries.  Each of your guesses must be a real 5-letter word.

Can you solve 4 words at once?

Word of the day.

See Definitions and Examples »

Get Word of the Day daily email!

Popular in Grammar & Usage

8 grammar terms you used to know, but forgot, homophones, homographs, and homonyms, commonly misspelled words, a guide to em dashes, en dashes, and hyphens, absent letters that are heard anyway, popular in wordplay, 10 scrabble words without any vowels, 12 more bird names that sound like insults (and sometimes are), the words of the week - feb. 16, 9 superb owl words, 'gaslighting,' 'woke,' 'democracy,' and other top lookups, games & quizzes.

Play Blossom: Solve today's spelling word game by finding as many words as you can using just 7 letters. Longer words score more points.

  • Global directory Global directory
  • Product logins Product logins
  • Contact us Contact us

Our Privacy Statement & Cookie Policy

All Thomson Reuters websites use cookies to improve your online experience. They were placed on your computer when you launched this website. You can change your cookie settings through your browser.

  • Privacy Statement
  • Cookie Policy

the res judicata

What is res judicata?

November 11, 2022 · 5 minute read

In order to prevent needless waste of judicial time and energy, it is critical to ensure litigants do not overburden courts with redundant and duplicative proceedings. There are several legal doctrines aimed at that important preservation, most notably, “res judicata.”

The doctrine, which derives from the Latin of “a matter judged,” is designed to prohibit parties from relitigating a claim or a defense of something that has already been decided. The idea is meant to ensure the finality of judgments and conserve judicial resources . Additionally, the repeated litigation of an already adjudicated matter is generally not in the public’s best interest .

Conventional wisdom says one judicial contest should be enough for litigants to make their claims or mount a defense. This is critical as the amount of judicial work has increased in recent years.

What are the three elements of res judicata?

Res judicata has three general elements: re-litigation, same cause of action, and same or closely related parties.

Re-litigation

Res judicata prevents a party from bringing a claim once that particular claim has been subjected to a final judgment in some previous lawsuit. Re-litigation applies to a new lawsuit brought in any court, not just the one responsible for earlier judgment. This piece of res judicata is considered the most straightforward of the doctrine.

Same cause of action

Similarly, res judicata prevents a party from bringing the same claim or cause of action against the defendant once a final judgment has been made. The term ‘claim’ is the legal demand for compensation, while ’cause of action’ is the set of elements that allow for legal remedy .

Same or closely related parties

If the parties to a lawsuit are individuals, it is inherently easier to identify if a new lawsuit does, in fact, involve those individuals. However, the principle of res judicata can also prohibit litigation brought by parties or entities “in privity” to the party involved with the original lawsuit. This can include anyone “acting as an agent” on behalf of the original plaintiff, or any subsidiary of, for example, a corporate plaintiff. And the same principle applies for defendants.

Res judicata vs. collateral estoppel

The broader doctrine can be further divvied into two separate, major components : the first is res judicata, or “claim preclusion,” and the second is “collateral estoppel,” which is also known as issue preclusion.

Res judicata prohibits a second action on previously litigated matters as a whole and cause of actions/claims spawning from similar subject matter.

Alternatively, collateral estoppel prevents additional litigation of “particular issues” within previously resolved in prior cases. In practice, collateral estoppel is the principal concept behind double jeopardy protections for criminal defendants. As established in Benton v. Maryland , this protection is binding in both state and federal courts by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.

In order to invoke the collateral estoppel, parties must establish several elements:

  • First, the facts in question were fairly and fully litigated.
  • The facts were essential to the first action’s judgment.
  • The parties were deemed adversarial with respect to that action.

What is an example of res judicata?

Res judicata has broad practical applications. Recently, its use was tested in the 2018 patent lawsuit, Sowinski v. California Air Resources Board , which affirmed res judicata applied not only to cases resolved on the merits —the facts and evidence of a case—but also ones adjudicated on procedural grounds.

The first lawsuit occurred in 2015, when Richard Sowinski, inventor of an electronic method for claiming pollution tax credits, sued the California Air Resources Board (CARB) over their alleged use of his patent in one of their programs. The court dismissed the complaint because Sowinski failed to respond to motions before the deadline.

Sowinski filed a lawsuit again in 2018, this time seeking infringement damages from the 2015 case decision. He argued that res judicata should not apply since a prior suit was, in fact, resolved on procedural grounds, rather than the merits of the purported infringement. However, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed the lower court ruling applying res judicata anyway, since the cases were essentially the same.

What attorneys need to know about res judicata in court

Generally, the value of res judicata lies in its preservation of time and resources. It is also, logically, a very intuitive piece of law. The burdens to the court are obvious when you remove important protections against waste and frivolity.

“If at first you don’t succeed, try again” is a fine concept for little leaguers and struggling artists; however, it doesn’t work quite so well with respect to attorneys, judges, plaintiffs, and defendants. For these reasons, we see great application of the doctrine in our judicial system.

For more information about how to apply (and counteract) relevant, emerging legal doctrines like res judicata, see our coverage of the increasingly applied “ Reptile Theory .”

  • Legal Topics

the res judicata

Join our community

Sign up for industry-leading insights, updates, and all things AI @ Thomson Reuters.

the res judicata

Webcast and events

Browse all our upcoming and on-demand webcasts and virtual events hosted by leading legal experts.

Related posts

the res judicata

Managing litigation risks

the res judicata

Love Litigating Lawyers Day: A celebration of legal advocacy

the res judicata

How to specify cause of action and elements using on-point cases

More answers.

the res judicata

How to identify a cloud-based solution for your law firm

the res judicata

AI for legal documents: Unlocking a competitive edge

the res judicata

Do you have New Year’s resolutions as a lawyer? 4 goals to consider in 2024

Bona Law Antitrust & Competition

Legal Resources

Business litigation, what are the elements of res judicata (claim preclusion), december 15, 2020.

Filing a lawsuit  requires careful planning because a plaintiff might receive only one opportunity to assert their claims against a defendant in court. The doctrine of res judicata, also known as “claim preclusion,” prevents a party from re-litigating a claim once a court has issued a final judgment on that claim.

What Is Res Judicata?

The term res judicata is Latin for “a matter decided.” In a 2002 ruling, the California Supreme Court in  Mycogen Corporation v. Monsanto Company  stated that the doctrine of res judicata “prevents relitigation of the same cause of action in a second suit between the same parties or parties in privity with them.”

Elements of Res Judicata

1. relitigation.

Under res judicata, a party cannot bring a claim in a lawsuit once that claim has been the subject of a final judgment in an earlier lawsuit. This usually applies to any new lawsuit filed in any court, not just the court that issued the earlier judgment.

2. The Same Cause of Action

A party cannot bring the same claim, or cause of action, against the same defendant after a final judgment. We tend to use the terms “claim” and “cause of action” interchangeably, but they do not always have precisely the same meaning in a legal context.

In the Lanham Act example from earlier, suppose that the only cause of action in Person A’s original lawsuit was for false advertising. Res judicata, by itself, might not preclude Person A from suing Person B at a later time for other claims, such as  antitrust violations  arising out of the false statements. Since they already prevailed in a lawsuit for damages, however, collateral estoppel might prevent those new claims.

3. The Same Parties, or Closely Related Parties

Exceptions to res judicata.

Courts have identified several situations in which res judicata would not prevent a new lawsuit. They mostly address the manner in which a claim was dismissed, and they include:

  • Dismissal of a claim for lack of jurisdiction or improper venue;
  • Voluntary dismissal of a claim by a plaintiff;
  • Dismissal for want of prosecution;
  • Dismissal without prejudice, which often expressly states that a plaintiff may refile if they correct certain defects or errors in their pleadings; and
  • Failure to join a party under a mandatory joinder rule.

The jurisdiction issue can be particularly confusing when it involves lawsuits in both state and federal courts. A California appellate court addressed this challenge in a  2018 ruling . The plaintiff filed suit against an agency of the State of California in federal court, asserting claims under both federal and state laws. The U.S. District Court dismissed his state law claims for lack of subject matter jurisdiction under the  Eleventh Amendment .

The plaintiff filed a new lawsuit in state court, asserting the same claims that the federal court had dismissed. The state appellate court held that res judicata did not preclude those claims, essentially because the dismissal in federal court was not based on the merits of the claims.

Latest News

the res judicata

  •   Home

feed

Welcome to the   Yale Law School Legal Scholarship Repository. This repository provides open, global access to the scholarship of Yale Law School faculty and jornals, as well as a selection of unique collections. 

Communities in Yale Law School Open Scholarship Repository

Select a community to browse its collections.

Recently Added

Thumbnail

Constraining and Licensing Arbitrariness: The Stakes in Debates about Substantive-Procedural Due Process

Thumbnail

Valuing ESG

Thumbnail

An Empirical Investigation of Arbitrator Race and Gender in U.S. Arbitration

Thumbnail

Sex/Gender Segregation: A Human Rights Violation, Not a Protection

Removing the bias of criminal convictions from family law, export search results.

The export option will allow you to export the current search results of the entered query to a file. Different formats are available for download. To export the items, click on the button corresponding with the preferred download format.

By default, clicking on the export buttons will result in a download of the allowed maximum amount of items.

To select a subset of the search results, click "Selective Export" button and make a selection of the items you want to export. The amount of items that can be exported at once is similarly restricted as the full export.

After making a selection, click one of the export format buttons. The amount of items that will be exported is indicated in the bubble next to export format.

  • Practical Law

Res Judicata

Practical law uk glossary 2-242-7976  (approx. 4 pages).

  • In the US, Practice Note, Commencing a Federal Lawsuit: Initial Considerations: Claim or Issue Preclusion May Bar Plaintiff's Claims .
  • In the UK, Practice note, Preventing subsequent litigation: res judicata and abuse of the court process .
  • United Kingdom
  • United States

Legal Definitions of Res Judicata And Collateral Estoppel

In Latin, Res judicata means "the thing has been decided" and legally, it means a final judgment of a competent court is conclusive and final. 5 min read updated on February 01, 2023

What Is Res Judicata?

In Latin, res judicata means "the thing has been decided." It's founded on the principle that a final judgment of a competent court is conclusive and final unless new material evidence becomes available. In other words, litigating parties are not allowed to raise the same issue in future courts .

The general rule is that a plaintiff who has prosecuted one action against a defendant and obtained a valid final judgment is barred by res judicata from prosecuting another action against the same defendant where:

  • The claim in the second action is one which is based on the same factual transaction that was at issue in the first.
  • The plaintiff seeks an additional or alternative remedy to the one sought earlier.
  • The claim is of such a nature as could have been joined in the first action.

Finding a Balance in Res Judicata

Underlying this standard is the need to strike a delicate balance between the interests of the defendant and of the courts in bringing litigation to a close and the interest of the plaintiff in the vindication of a just claim.

Full Faith and Credit Act

The Full Faith and Credit Act, 28 U.S.C. S 1738, requires that federal courts "give a state-court judgment the same preclusive effect as would be given that judgment under the law of the State in which the judgment was rendered. " Migra v. Warren City School Dist. Bd. of Educ., 465 U.S. 75, 81 (1984). Oregon courts adhere to standard principles of claim and issue preclusion. See Rennie v. Freeway Transp., 294 Or. 319 (1982).

What's the Difference Between Res Judicata and Collateral Estoppel?

The difference between res judicata and collateral estoppel has been succinctly described by Justice Potter Stewart, who stated that the federal courts have traditionally adhered to the related doctrines of res judicata (claim preclusion) and collateral estoppel (issue preclusion). Under res judicata, a final judgment on the merits of an action precludes the parties or their privies from relitigating issues that were or could have been raised in that action.

Under collateral estoppel, once a court has decided an issue of fact or law necessary to its judgment, that decision may preclude relitigation of the issue in a suit on a different cause of action involving a party to the first case. As courts often recognize, res judicata and collateral estoppel relieve parties of the costs and aggravation of multiple lawsuits, conserve judicial resources, and, by preventing inconsistent decisions, encourage reliance on adjudication. Allen v. McCurry, 449 U.S. at 94. The collateral estoppel bar is inapplicable when the claimant did not have a "full and fair opportunity to litigate" the issue decided by the state court. Id. at 101. Thus, a claimant can file a federal suit to challenge the adequacy of state procedures.

Recognized Exceptions in Splitting a Claim

Splitting a claim occurs when a single or indivisible claim or cause of action is divided up into smaller separate parts in order to bring about additional separate suits. Consent or tacit agreement is clear justification for splitting a claim. The primary purpose of claim preclusion is to protect defendants from being harassed by repetitive actions based on the same claim . However, the rule need not be enforced where the State and County have implicitly consented to the splitting of the claim under state and federal laws. See Rennie, 294 Or. at 329 n. 9 (citing 18 Charles A. Wright, Arthur C. Miller & Edward H. Cooper, Federal Practice and Procedure S 4415 at 124-125; and Annot., 40 A.L.R.3d 108 (1971)).

It may appear in the course of an action that the plaintiff is splitting a claim. However, there are special reasons that may justify them in doing so. For example, there are certain situations where the prior judgment's that's been made ought not to have the usual consequences of extinguishing the entire claim. Rather, the plaintiff should be left with an opportunity to litigate in a second action that part of the claim which they justifiably omitted from the first action.

England Reservation

The so-called England reservation is available to litigants that are in state court "involuntarily" as a result of Pullman abstention by the federal court. Pullman abstention is a principle that prohibits federal courts from dealing with a state's constitutional issue when the state has the means to resolve the issue itself. See England v. Louisiana State Bd. of Medical Examiners, 375 U.S. 411 (1964); see also Railroad Comm'n of Texas v. Pullman Co., 312 U.S.496 (1941).

England reservation applies when a litigant files a suit in federal court and the federal court stays proceedings to allow the state courts to consider state law questions. In such a situation, the litigant may inform the state court that they should reserve all federal issues with the federal courts. By taking this action, the litigant avoids the bar of res judicata upon return to federal court.

Remember, res judicata disallows a party from bringing a claim if a court of competent jurisdiction has rendered its final judgment on the merits in a previous action, involving the same parties and claims. In re Intl Nutronics, Inc., 28 F.3d 965, 969 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 115 S. Ct. 577 (1994). For example, once a bankruptcy plan has been confirmed, it is binding to all parties and all questions that could have been raised pertaining to the plan and are entitled to the res judicata effect. See 11 U.S.C. section 1141(a).

Decision Made by a Court of Competent Jurisdiction

It is a general principle that such decision is binding and conclusive upon all other courts of concurrent power. This principle pervades not only our own, but all other systems of jurisprudence, and has become a rule of universal law, founded on the soundest policy.

For example, Paul sues Peter to recover the funds due from a loan. During the trial, Paul fails to prove that Peter was loaned the monies, and the verdict is rendered in favor of the defendant, Paul. Until this judgment has been reversed due to an error, it will be conclusive upon both parties. Paul will not be able to recover the funds from Peter in a subsequent suit unless he can prove that the monies are due to him.

Conditions to Make a Matter Res Judicata

The Constitution of the U.S. declares that no fact, once tried by a jury, shall be otherwise reexaminable in any court. But in order to make a matter res judicata there must be a concurrence of these four conditions:

  • Identity of the thing sued for .
  • Identity of the cause of action.
  • Identity of persons and of parties to the action : This rule is a necessary consequence of the rule of natural justice: ne inauditus condemnetur.

Identity of the quality in the persons for or against whom the claim is made : For example, an action by Peter to recover a horse, and a final judgment against him, is no bar to an action by Peter, administrator of Paul, to recover the same horse.

Hire the top business lawyers and save up to 60% on legal fees

Content Approved by UpCounsel

  • Collateral Estoppel
  • Issue Preclusion
  • Legal Definition of Splitting A Claim/Cause Of Action
  • Judgment Defined and Explained
  • Federal Causes of Action
  • What Is the Third Party Claim Legal Definition?
  • Claim Legal Definition
  • Legal Definition of Unjust Taking
  • Article III Courts
  • Legal Action For Non Payment
  • Search results
  • Publications
  • Save to folder
  • Copy the reference

Find out all Jus Mundi tutorial videos in : https://tutorial.jusmundi.com ​

In less than 3 minutes you'll find everything you need to know about Jus Mundi and how to take full advantage of our search engine.​

Res Judicata

Gambarini Camilla picture

Gambarini Camilla

Senior Associate, International Arbitration - Withers LLP

Pika Maximilian picture

Pika Maximilian

  • Anti-Suit Injunctions
  • Trigger Letter / Notice of Intent
  • Consolidation
  • Contract Interpretation
  • Mass Claims
  • Annulment Tribunal
  • Enforcement
  • Seat of Arbitration
  • Cooling-off Period
  • Amicus Curiae
  • Closing of the Proceedings
  • Discontinuance of the Proceedings
  • Abuse of Process
  • Bifurcation
  • Admissibility
  • Withdrawal from Arbitral Proceedings
  • Transparency
  • Summary Procedure
  • Stay of Proceedings
  • Provisional Measures
  • Proof / Evidence
  • Parallel Proceedings
  • Language of the Proceedings
  • Jurisdiction
  • Joinder / Intervention
  • Document Production
  • Counterclaims
  • Conflicts of Interests
  • Confidentiality
  • Claim Manifestly without Legal Merits
  • Applicable Law

I. Definition

Ii. rationale and context, iii. sources, iv. applicable law, v. requirements under international law, a. first requirement: final decision, b. second requirement: same subject-matter, 1. general principles, 2. the particular issue of ‘issue estoppel’, ‘issue preclusion’ or ‘collateral estoppel’, c. third requirement: same parties, d. considerations on the identity of legal order: res judicata of national decisions before treaty tribunals, vi. functionally-related preclusion doctrines, bibliography.

The doctrine of res judicata safeguards the final and binding effect of decisions in three ways.

  • The doctrine precludes re-litigation of the same subject-matter within the same proceeding, e.g. after a partial decision (such as on jurisdiction) 1 or after the partial annulment of an award. 2
  • The doctrine   precludes re-litigation of the same subject-matter between the same parties in follow-up proceedings in that duplicative claims are inadmissible ( ne bis in idem ). 3
  • If the subject-matter of the prior decision becomes an incidental matter in follow-up proceedings, the prior decision will be conclusive and contrary pleadings will be precluded. 4

Amco Asia Corporation and others v. Republic of Indonesia, ICSID Case No. ARB/81/1, Decision on Jurisdiction in Resubmitted Proceeding, 10 May 1988, para. 48 ; Compañía de Aguas del Aconquija S.A. and Vivendi Universal S.A. (formerly Compañía de Aguas del Aconquija, S.A. and Compagnie Générale des Eaux) v. Argentine Republic (I), ICSID Case No. ARB/97/3, Decision on Jurisdiction, 14 November 2005, paras. 78, 89, 107 ; Mobil Cerro Negro Holding, Ltd., Mobil Cerro Negro, Ltd., Mobil Corporation and others v. Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela, ICSID Case No. ARB/07/27, Award (Resubmission Proceeding), 10 July 2023, para. 60 .

Question of the Delimitation of the Continental Shelf between Nicaragua and Colombia beyond 200 nautical miles from the Nicaraguan Coast (Nicaragua v. Colombia), Judgment - Preliminary objections, 17 March 2016, para. 48 ;  Waste Management, Inc. v. United Mexican States (I), ICSID Case No. ARB(AF)/98/2, Dissenting Opinion of Keith Highet (Arbitral Award), para. 51 .

Company General of the Orinoco Case, Opinion of Umpire, 31 July 1905, page. 276 ; Rachel S. Grynberg, Stephen M. Grynberg, Miriam Z. Grynberg and RSM Production Corporation v. Grenada, ICSID Case No. ARB/10/6, Award, 10 December 2010, para. 7.1.3 ; Apotex Holdings Inc. and Apotex Inc. v. United States of America, ICSID Case No. ARB(AF)/12/1, Award, 25 August 2014, para. 7.54 ; Ampal-American Israel Corp., EGI-Fund (08-10) Investors LLC, EGI-Series Investments LLC, BSS-EMG Investors LLC and David Fischer v. Arab Republic of Egypt, ICSID Case No. ARB/12/11, Decision on Liability and Heads of Loss, 21 February 2017, paras. 255-256, 258-259 ;  Waste Management v. United Mexican States (II), ICSID Case No. ARB(AF)/00/3, Decision of the Tribunal on Mexico's Preliminary Objection concerning the Previous Proceedings, 26 June 2002, para. 45 .

Application of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (Bosnia and Herzegovina v. Serbia and Montenegro), Judgment, 26 February 2007, paras. 120, 140 ;  Landesbank Baden-Württemberg, HSH Nordbank AG, Landesbank Hessen-Thüringen Girozentrale and Norddeutsche Landesbank-Girozentrale v. Kingdom of Spain , ICSID Case No. ARB/15/45, Decision on the Respondent's Application for Reconsideration of the Tribunal's Decision of 25 February 2019 Regarding the "Intra-EU" Jurisdictional Objection, 11 November 2021, para. 27-29 ; Landesbank Baden-Württemberg, HSH Nordbank AG, Landesbank Hessen-Thüringen Girozentrale and Norddeutsche Landesbank-Girozentrale v. Kingdom of Spain, ICSID Case No. ARB/15/45, Decision on the Respondent's Application for Reconsideration of the Tribunal's Decision of 11 November 2021 Regarding the "Intra-EU" Jurisdictional Objection, 22 February 2023, para. 36 .

Res judicata is therefore said to have a negative effect ( ne bis in idem ) and a positive effect (conclusive effect in a subsequent proceeding). 5

Marco Gavazzi and Stefano Gavazzi v. Romania, ICSID Case No. ARB/12/25, Dissenting opinion by arbitrator Mauro Rubino-Sammartano, para. 10 ; GPF GP S.à.r.l v. Poland, SCC Case No. 2014/168, Final Award, 29 April 2020, para. 284 ; Joseph Charles Lemire v. Ukraine (II), ICSID Case No. ARB/06/18, Dissenting Opinion of Arbitrator Dr. Jürgen Voss (Award), para. 489 .

Res judicata preclusive and conclusive effects prevent inconsistent decisions. Thereby, it serves both public and private interests in justice, consistency, legal certainty, prevention of abuses and efficiency. 6  At the same time, the doctrine affects the adjudicatory power of the tribunal applying it and the precluded party’s right to be heard. 7

Res judicata is only one out of several means for achieving forum coordination. Others balance comparable interests, e.g. consolidation , lis pendens or irreconcilability as a ground for non-enforcement. The principles may thus affect res judicata issues. (See further Parallel proceedings )

Application of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (Bosnia and Herzegovina v. Serbia and Montenegro), Judgment, 26 February 2007, para. 116 ; Mobil Investments Canada Inc. v. Canada (II), ICSID Case No. ARB/15/6, Decision on Jurisdiction and Admissibility, 13 July 2018, para. 189 ;  Eskosol S.p.A. in liquidazione v. Italian Republic, ICSID Case No. ARB/15/50, Decision on Respondent's Application under Rule 41(5), 20 March 2017, para. 134 .

TECO Guatemala Holdings, LLC v. Republic of Guatemala, ICSID Case No. ARB/10/23, Award (Resubmission Proceeding), 13 May 2020, para. 79 .

A general principle of international law, 8   res judicata is not codified. Notwithstanding phrases stating that decisions are “final and binding between the Parties” ( e.g. Articles 59, 60 ICJ Statute 9 ,   Article 53(1) of the ICSID Convention 10 ), most of res judicata ’s specifics come down to jurisprudence. An exception is the specific issue of revising arbitral awards after new facts came to light which is governed by Article 51 ICSID Convention . Many discussions on the other specifics under international law exist due to significant divergences between national doctrines. 11

Recognition under e.g. the New York Convention is a pre-requisite, not a synonym for cross-jurisdictional res judicata . 12

Cheng, B., General Principles of Law as Applied by International Court and Tribunals , 1953, p. 336:

“little, if indeed any question as to res judicata being a general principle of law or as to its applicability in international judicial proceedings.”

Interpretation of Judgments Nos. 7 and 8 (Factory at Chorzów), PCIJ Series A. No 13, Dissenting Opinion by M. Anzilotti, page. 23 ; Trail smelter case (United States of America, Canada), Award, 11 March 1941, page. 1950 ; Question of the Delimitation of the Continental Shelf between Nicaragua and Colombia beyond 200 nautical miles from the Nicaraguan Coast (Nicaragua v. Colombia), Separate Opinion of Judge Greenwood, 17 March 2016, para. 2 ; Request for Interpretation of the Judgment of 11 June 1998 in the Case concerning the Land and Maritime Boundary between Cameroon and Nigeria (Cameroon v. Nigeria), Preliminary Objections (Nigeria v. Cameroon), Judgment, 25 March 1999, para. 12 ; Application of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (Bosnia and Herzegovina v. Serbia and Montenegro), Judgment, 26 February 2007, para. 116 ; Question of the Delimitation of the Continental Shelf between Nicaragua and Colombia beyond 200 nautical miles from the Nicaraguan Coast (Nicaragua v. Colombia), Judgment - Preliminary objections, 17 March 2016, para. 58 ;  Apotex Holdings Inc. and Apotex Inc. v. United States of America, ICSID Case No. ARB(AF)/12/1, Award, 25 August 2014, para. 7.11 ; Mobil Investments Canada Inc. v. Canada (II), ICSID Case No. ARB/15/6, Decision on Jurisdiction and Admissibility, 13 July 2018, para. 187 ; Amco Asia Corporation and others v. Republic of Indonesia, ICSID Case No. ARB/81/1, Decision on Jurisdiction in Resubmitted Proceeding, 10 May 1988, para. 26 ; Elsamex, S.A. v. Republic of Honduras, ICSID Case No. ARB/09/4, Award, 16 November 2012, para. 212 ; Industria Nacional de Alimentos, S.A. and Indalsa Perú, S.A. (formerly Empresas Lucchetti, S.A. and Lucchetti Perú, S.A.) v. Republic of Peru, ICSID Case No. ARB/03/4, Decision on Annulment, 5 September 2007, para. 86 ; Occidental Petroleum Corporation and Occidental Exploration and Production Company v. Republic of Ecuador (II), ICSID Case No. ARB/06/11, Decision on Annulment of the Award, 2 November 2015, para. 394 ; Novenergia II - Energy & Environment (SCA) (Grand Duchy of Luxembourg), SICAR v. The Kingdom of Spain, SCC Case No. 2015/063, Procedural Order No. 17 (Request for Rectification, Clarification and Complement of the Final Award), 9 April 2018, para. 2 ; Petrobart Limited v. The Kyrgyz Republic (II), SCC Case No. 126/2003, Award, 29 March 2005, para. 351 ;  Landesbank Baden-Württemberg, HSH Nordbank AG, Landesbank Hessen-Thüringen Girozentrale and Norddeutsche Landesbank-Girozentrale v. Kingdom of Spain , ICSID Case No. ARB/15/45, Decision on the Respondent's Application for Reconsideration of the Tribunal's Decision of 25 February 2019 Regarding the "Intra-EU" Jurisdictional Objection, 11 November 2021, para. 26 .

Interpretation of Judgments Nos. 7 and 8 (Factory at Chorzów), PCIJ Series A. No 13, Dissenting Opinion by M. Anzilotti, page. 23 ; Question of the Delimitation of the Continental Shelf between Nicaragua and Colombia beyond 200 nautical miles from the Nicaraguan Coast (Nicaragua v. Colombia), Judgment - Preliminary objections, 17 March 2016, para. 55 ; Apotex Holdings Inc. and Apotex Inc. v. United States of America, ICSID Case No. ARB(AF)/12/1, Award, 25 August 2014, para. 7.61 .

De Ly, F. and Sheppard, A., ILA Interim Report on Res Judicata and Arbitration , Arbitration International, 2009, p. 35.

Zeuner, A. and Koch, H., Effects of Judgments (Res Judicata) , International Encyclopaedia of Comparative Law, 2014, Chapter 9.

Pika, M., Third-Party Effects of Arbitral Awards, 2019, Chapters 2 and 4.

Berger, B. and Kellerhals, F., International and Domestic Arbitration in Switzerland , 3 rd ed., 2015, para. 2111.

Gaillard, E. and Savage, J., Fouchard Gaillard Goldman on International Commercial Arbitration , 1999, para. 1667.

Poudret, J-F. and Besson, S., Comparative Law of International Arbitration, 2007, para. 850.

Restatement (Third) U.S. Law of Int’l Comm. Arb. TD No. 2 2012, paras. 4-9.

Born, G., International Commercial Arbitration , 2 nd ed., 2014, p. 3741 et seq.

Poncet, C., and Mockler, L., Res Judicata: A Contribution to the Debate on Claim Preclusion in International Arbitration , in Liber Amicorum en l’Honneur de William Laurence Craig, 2016, p. 317 ;  Ascom Group S.A., Anatolie Stati, Gabriel Stati and Terra Raf Trans Traiding Ltd. v. Republic of Kazakhstan (I), SCC Case No. 116/2010, Judgment of the Brussels Court of Appeal, 16 November 2021, paras. [8], [11] .

ConocoPhillips Petrozuata B.V., ConocoPhillips Hamaca B.V. and ConocoPhillips Gulf of Paria B.V. v. Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela, ICSID Case No. ARB/07/30, Decision on the Applicant's Request to Continue the Stay of Enforcement of the Award, 2 November 2020, para. 32 .

Treaty tribunals apply international law to res judicata . 13  For arbitral tribunals with their seat in a national jurisdiction, the potential conflict-of-laws approaches to res judicata are plentiful and rarely settled by appellate jurisprudence. 14  For this reason, several arbitral tribunals, 15  the ILA 16  and academic authors 17  favoured the creation of transnational principles.

But also see Iberdola v. Guatemala , Final Award.

Apotex Holdings Inc. and Apotex Inc. v. United States of America, ICSID Case No. ARB(AF)/12/1, Award, 25 August 2014, para. 7.11 ; Ampal-American Israel Corp., EGI-Fund (08-10) Investors LLC, EGI-Series Investments LLC, BSS-EMG Investors LLC and David Fischer v. Arab Republic of Egypt, ICSID Case No. ARB/12/11, Decision on Liability and Heads of Loss, 21 February 2017, para. 257 ; Malicorp Limited v. Arab Republic of Egypt, ICSID Case No. ARB/08/18 , Award, 7 February 2011, para. 103 ;  Iberdrola Energía, S.A. v. The Republic of Guatemala, PCA Case No. 2017-41, Final Award, 24 August 2020, paras. 234, 242 ; Lao Holdings N.V. v. Lao People’s Democratic Republic (I), ICSID Case No. ARB(AF)/12/6, Decision on the Merits of Claimants' Second Material Breach Application, 15 December 2017, para. 105 .

Pika, M., Third-Party Effects of Arbitral Awards, 2019, 6.01.

ICC Case 3267, Final Award, (1987) XII Y.C.A. 87.

ICC Case 4126, Partial Award, (1974-1985) I ICC Collection 511, 513-514.

ICC Case 5835, 1992, cited by Hascher in Travaux du comité francais DIP 19.

ICC Case 6233, 1992, (1991-1995) III ICC Collection 332.

ICC Case 6363, Arbitral Award, 1991, (1992) XVII Y.C.A. 185.

ICC Case 9800, 2000, (2001-2007) V ICC Collection 659.

ICC Case 12226, Award, 2004, unpublished, cited by the commentator to ICC Case 9800, 667.

ICC Case 13133, Final Award, (2010) XXXV Y.C.A. 129, [36-39].

ICC Case 13509, Arbitral Award, (2008-2011) VI ICC Collection 739.

De Ly, F. and Sheppard, A., ILA Final Report on Res Judicata and Arbitration , Arbitration International, Vol. 25, Issue 1, 2009, p. 67.

Born, G., International Commercial Arbitration , 2 nd ed., Kluwer, 2014, p. 3776.

Hanotiau, B., Complex Arbitrations, Kluwer, 2006, pp. 239-256.

Mayer, P., Litispendence, connexité et chose jugée dans l’arbitrage international , in Liber Amicorum Reymond, p. 187.

Schaffstein, S., The Doctrine of Res Judicata before International Commercial Arbitral Tribunals, Oxford University Press, 2016, para. 6.214.

Bermann, G., Arbitration and Private International Law, General Course on Private International Law , Rec. des cours, Vol. 381, 2015, para. 535 ; Hascher, D., L’autorit é de chose jug é e des sentences arbitrales , in Travaux du comité francais de droit international privé, DIP 25-26 ;  Mayer, P., L’autorité de chose jugée des sentences entre les parties , Rev. Arb., 2016/1, p. 101 ;  Radicati di Brozolo, L.G., Res Judicata and International Arbitral Awards , Post Award Issues , ASA Special Series No. 38, 2011, pp. 127-140 ;  Seraglini, C., Le droit applicable à l’autorité de la chose jugée dans l’arbitrage , Rev. Arb., 2016/1, pp. 66-75 ; Yaffe, N., Transnational Arbitral Res Judicata , J. Int’l Arb., Vol. 34, Issue 5, 2017, p. 824 .

Res judicata can be based upon partial decisions and non-annulled parts of arbitral awards, 18  but not on interim decision (i.e. provisional measures and procedural orders) which are temporary in nature. 19 One tribunal noted that its own injunctive relief granted in an award but limited in time, may constitute res judicata . 20

But also see  Cavalum v. Spain :

Application of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (Bosnia and Herzegovina v. Serbia and Montenegro), Judgment, 26 February 2007, paras. 120, 140 ; ConocoPhillips Petrozuata B.V., ConocoPhillips Hamaca B.V. and ConocoPhillips Gulf of Paria B.V. v. Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela, ICSID Case No. ARB/07/30, Decision on Respondent's Request for Reconsideration, 10 March 2014, para. 21 ; Perenco Ecuador Limited v. Republic of Ecuador (Petroecuador), ICSID Case No. ARB/08/6, Decision on Ecuador's Reconsideration Motion, 10 April 2015, para. 97 ; Quiborax S.A., Non-Metallic Minerals S.A. v. Plurinational State of Bolivia, ICSID Case No. ARB/06/2, Award, 16 September 2015, para. 130 ; ConocoPhillips Petrozuata B.V., ConocoPhillips Hamaca B.V. and ConocoPhillips Gulf of Paria B.V. v. Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela, ICSID Case No. ARB/07/30, Decision on Respondent's Request for Reconsideration, 9 February 2016, para. 38 ; Amco Asia Corporation and others v. Republic of Indonesia, ICSID Case No. ARB/81/1, Decision on Jurisdiction in Resubmitted Proceeding, 10 May 1988, para. 48 ; Compañía de Aguas del Aconquija S.A. and Vivendi Universal S.A. (formerly Compañía de Aguas del Aconquija, S.A. and Compagnie Générale des Eaux) v. Argentine Republic (I), ICSID Case No. ARB/97/3, Decision on Jurisdiction, 14 November 2005, paras. 78, 89, 97, 107 ;  Víctor Pey Casado and President Allende Foundation v. Republic of Chile, ICSID Case No. ARB/98/2, Award, 13 September 2016, paras. 173-178, 217-218, 240 ; Perenco Ecuador Limited v. Republic of Ecuador (Petroecuador), ICSID Case No. ARB/08/6, Decision on Claimant’s Application for Dismissal of Ecuador's Counter-claims, 18 August 2017, paras. 48-50 ; Amco Asia Corporation and others v. Republic of Indonesia, ICSID Case No. ARB/81/1, Decision on Jurisdiction in Resubmitted Proceeding, 10 May 1988, para. 21 ; Víctor Pey Casado and President Allende Foundation v. Republic of Chile, ICSID Case No. ARB/98/2, Decision on Annulment, 8 January 2020, para. 655 ; Murphy Exploration & Production Company – International v. The Republic of Ecuador (II), PCA Case No. 2012-16, Final Award, 10 February 2017, para. 32 ;  Abed El Jaouni and Imperial Holding SAL v. Lebanese Republic, ICSID Case No. ARB/15/3, Award, 14 January 2021, paras. 100, 103, 105 ; Cavalum SGPS, S.A. v. Kingdom of Spain, ICSID Case No. ARB/15/34, Decision on the Kingdom of Spain's Request for Reconsideration, 10 January 2022, paras. 62-63, 65 ;  Mobil Cerro Negro Holding, Ltd., Mobil Cerro Negro, Ltd., Mobil Corporation and others v. Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela , ICSID Case No. ARB/07/27, Award (Resubmission Proceeding), 10 July 2023, para. 60 .

Standard Chartered Bank (Hong Kong) Limited v. Tanzania Electric Supply Company Limited, ICSID Case No. ARB/10/20, Decision on Annulment, 22 August 2018, paras. 150-151 ; Víctor Pey Casado and President Allende Foundation v. Republic of Chile, ICSID Case No. ARB/98/2, Decision on Provisional Measures, 25 September 2001, para. 14 ; Millicom International Operations B.V. and Sentel GSM SA v. The Republic of Senegal, ICSID Case No. ARB/08/20, Decision on the Application for Provisional Measures, 9 December 2009, para. 38 ; Nova Group Investments, B.V. v. Romania, ICSID Case No. ARB/16/19, Procedural Order No. 8 Concerning Respondent’s Request for Reconsideration of Procedural Order No. 7, 18 April 2017, para. 31 ; RWE Innogy GmbH and RWE Innogy Aersa S.A.U. v. Kingdom of Spain, ICSID Case No. ARB/14/34, Award, 18 December 2020, paras. 89-91 ; Burlington Resources, Inc. v. Republic of Ecuador, ICSID Case No. ARB/08/5, Decision on Reconsideration and Award, 7 February 2017, para. 86 ; Standard Chartered Bank (Hong Kong) Limited v. Tanzania Electric Supply Company Limited, ICSID Case No. ARB/10/20, Award, 12 September 2016, paras. 310-311, 318 ; Vedanta Resources PLC v. Republic of India, PCA Case No. 2016-05, Judgment of the High Court of Singapore, 8 October 2020, paras. 43-47 ; Vedanta Resources PLC v. Republic of India, PCA Case No. 2016-05, Judgment of the High Court of Singapore, 8 October 2020, para. 99 ; Cairn Energy PLC and Cairn UK Holdings Limited v. The Republic of India, PCA Case No. 2016-07, Judgment of the High Court of Singapore, 8 October 2020, para. 99 ; Ioan Micula, Viorel Micula and others v. Romania (I), ICSID Case No. ARB/05/20, Final Award, 11 December 2013, para. 1313 ;  Rand, Kathleen Elizabeth Rand, Allison Ruth Rand, Robert Harry Leander Rand and Sembi Investment Limited v. Republic of Serbia, ICSID Case No. ARB/18/8, Procedural Order No. 9 (New Evidence, Assistance and Provisional Measures), 12 March 2021, para. 88 ;  Cavalum SGPS, S.A. v. Kingdom of Spain, ICSID Case No. ARB/15/34, Decision on the Kingdom of Spain's Request for Reconsideration, 10 January 2022, para. 71 .

Ioan Micula, Viorel Micula and others v. Romania (I), ICSID Case No. ARB/05/20, Final Award, 11 December 2013, para. 1313 .

Moreover, a final award can lose its res judicata effect to the extent it was annulled. 21

MTD Equity Sdn. Bhd. and MTD Chile S.A. v. Chile, ICSID Case No. ARB/01/7, Decision on Annulment, 21 March 2007, para. 54 ; CMS Gas Transmission Company v. The Argentine Republic, ICSID Case No. ARB/01/8, Decision of the Ad hoc Committee on Argentina's Application for Annulment, 25 September 2007, para. 44 ; Azurix Corp. v. The Argentine Republic (I), ICSID Case No. ARB/01/12, Decision on the Application for Annulment of the Argentine Republic, 1 September 2009, para. 42 ; Sempra Energy International v. Argentine Republic, ICSID Case No. ARB/02/16, Decision on the Argentine Republic's Application for Annulment of the Award, 29 June 2010, paras. 73, 78 ; Enron Creditors Recovery Corporation (formerly Enron Corporation) and Ponderosa Assets, L.P. v. Argentine Republic, ICSID Case No. ARB/01/3, Decision on the Application for Annulment of the Argentine Republic, 30 July 2010, para. 64 ; Continental Casualty Company v. Argentine Republic, ICSID Case No. ARB/03/9, Decision on the Application for Partial Annulment, and the Application for Partial Annulment, 16 September 2011, para. 82 .

Settlements need to be confirmed in a consent award for res judicata to apply. 22

Joseph Charles Lemire v. Ukraine (II), ICSID Case No. ARB/06/18, Dissenting Opinion of Arbitrator Dr. Jürgen Voss (Award), paras. 34-35 ; Lao Holdings N.V. v. Lao People’s Democratic Republic (I), ICSID Case No. ARB(AF)/12/6, Decision on the Merits of Claimants' Second Material Breach Application, 15 December 2017, para. 109 .

Regarding res judicata of decisions on jurisdiction in particular, numerous tribunals affirmed this effect, 23 some of them without formally mentioning the principle. 24 When it comes to the practically-decisive question whether tribunals have the power to re-visit their own jurisdictional decisions, however, many tribunals  affirmed this power, especially for the event that new facts came to light. 25  

Electrabel S.A. v. The Republic of Hungary, ICSID Case No. ARB/07/19, Decision on Jurisdiction, Applicable Law and Liability, 30 November 2012, para. 10.1 ; ConocoPhillips Petrozuata B.V., ConocoPhillips Hamaca B.V. and ConocoPhillips Gulf of Paria B.V. v. Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela, ICSID Case No. ARB/07/30, Decision on Respondent's Request for Reconsideration, 10 March 2014, para. 21 ; Jan de Nul N.V. and Dredging International N.V. v. Arab Republic of Egypt, ICSID Case No. ARB/04/13, Award, 6 November 2008, para. 130 ; Jan Oostergetel and Theodora Laurentius v. The Slovak Republic, Final Award, 23 April 2012, para. 135 ; GPF GP S.à.r.l v. Poland, SCC Case No. 2014/168, Final Award, 29 April 2020, paras. 285-286 ; Compañía de Aguas del Aconquija S.A. and Vivendi Universal S.A. (formerly Compañía de Aguas del Aconquija, S.A. and Compagnie Générale des Eaux) v. Argentine Republic (I), ICSID Case No. ARB/97/3, Decision on the Argentine Republic's Request for Annulment of the Award rendered on 20 August 2007, 10 August 2010, para. 263 ; Occidental Petroleum Corporation and Occidental Exploration and Production Company v. Republic of Ecuador (II), ICSID Case No. ARB/06/11, Decision on Annulment of the Award, 2 November 2015, para. 394 ; Sistem Mühendislik Inşaat Sanayi ve Ticaret A.Ş. v. Kyrgyz Republic, ICSID Case No. ARB(AF)/06/1, Decision on Jurisdiction, 13 September 2007, para. 132 ; Supervision y Control S.A. v. Republic of Costa Rica, ICSID Case No. ARB/12/4, Award, 18 January 2017, para. 270 ;  Landesbank Baden-Württemberg et al. v. Kingdom of Spain , ICSID Case No. ARB/15/45, Decision on Reconsideration of Intra-EU Objection, 11 November 2021, paras. 26-44 ;  Landesbank Baden-Württemberg, HSH Nordbank AG, Landesbank Hessen-Thüringen Girozentrale and Norddeutsche Landesbank-Girozentrale v. Kingdom of Spain , ICSID Case No. ARB/15/45, Decision on the Respondent's Application for Reconsideration of the Tribunal's Decision of 11 November 2021 Regarding the "Intra-EU" Jurisdictional Objection, 22 February 2023, para. 36 ; JSC Tashkent Mechanical Plant, JSCB Asaka, JSCB Uzbek Industrial and Construction Bank, and National Bank for Foreign Economic Activity of the Republic of Uzbekistan v. Kyrgyz Republic, ICSID Case No. ARB(AF)/16/4, Award, 17 May 2023, paras. 437-439 .

AES Solar and others (PV Investors) v. Spain, PCA Case No. 2012-14, Final Award, 28 February 2020, paras. 544-545 ; CMS Gas Transmission Company v. The Argentine Republic, ICSID Case No. ARB/01/8, Award, 12 May 2005, para. 126 ; Quiborax S.A., Non-Metallic Minerals S.A. v. Plurinational State of Bolivia, ICSID Case No. ARB/06/2, Award, 16 September 2015, para. 541 .

Standard Chartered Bank (Hong Kong) Limited v. Tanzania Electric Supply Company Limited, ICSID Case No. ARB/10/20, Decision on Annulment, 22 August 2018, para. 169 ; Tokios Tokelés v. Ukraine, ICSID Case No. ARB/02/18, Award, 26 July 2007, para. 98 ; Pac Rim Cayman LLC v. The Republic of El Salvador, ICSID Case No. ARB/09/12, Award, 14 October 2016, para. 5.38 ; Antoine Biloune and Marine Drive Complex Ltd. v. Ghana Investments Centre and the Government of Ghana, Award on Damages and Costs, 30 July 1990, paras. 67-68 ; Iberdrola Energía, S.A. v. The Republic of Guatemala, PCA Case No. 2017-41, Final Award, 24 August 2020, paras. 262, 266-267 ; Elsamex, S.A. v. Republic of Honduras, ICSID Case No. ARB/09/4, Award, 16 November 2012, para. 212 ; Caratube International Oil Company LLP and Devincci Salah Hourani v. Republic of Kazakhstan (II), ICSID Case No. ARB/13/13, Award, 27 September 2017, para. 467 ;  Mathias Kruck, Frank Schumm, Joachim Kruck, Jürgen Reiss and others v. Kingdom of Spain, ICSID Case No. ARB/15/23, Decision Dismissing the Respondent's Request for Reconsideration of the Tribunal's Decision on Jurisdiction and Admissibility, 6 December 2021, paras. 24-31 ;  Cavalum SGPS, S.A. v. Kingdom of Spain, ICSID Case No. ARB/15/34, Decision on the Kingdom of Spain's Request for Reconsideration, 10 January 2022, paras. 74-77 ;  Mathias Kruck et al. v. Kingdom of Spain, ICSID Case No. ARB/15/23, Decision Dismissing the Respondent's Request for Reconsideration of the Tribunal's Decision on Jurisdiction and Admissibility, 6 December 2021, para. 29 ; Landesbank Baden-Württemberg et al. v. Kingdom of Spain, ICSID Case No. ARB/15/45, Decision on Reconsideration of Intra-EU Objection, 11 November 2021, paras. 45-48 ; Landesbank Baden-Württemberg, HSH Nordbank AG, Landesbank Hessen-Thüringen Girozentrale and Norddeutsche Landesbank-Girozentrale v. Kingdom of Spain, ICSID Case No. ARB/15/45, Decision on the Respondent's Application for Reconsideration of the Tribunal's Decision of 11 November 2021 Regarding the "Intra-EU" Jurisdictional Objection, 22 February 2023, paras. 34-35 .

Several other preliminary requirements known from national laws have not yet been addressed in detail by international jurisprudence, such as:

  • whether res judicata can be considered upon a tribunal’s own motion; 26
  • whether an ICSID award is res judicata during an ongoing annulment procedure ; 27 or
  • whether the prior tribunal’s jurisdiction can/must/must not be reviewed as a pre-requisite for res judicata of the prior tribunal’s decision. 28

Malicorp Limited v. Arab Republic of Egypt, ICSID Case No. ARB/08/18, Award, 7 February 2011, para. 103 .

Ioan Micula, Viorel Micula and others v. Romania (I), ICSID Case No. ARB/05/20, Judgment of the English Court of Appeal, 27 July 2018, para. 66 .

Rachel S. Grynberg, Stephen M. Grynberg, Miriam Z. Grynberg and RSM Production Corporation v. Grenada, ICSID Case No. ARB/10/6, Award, 10 December 2010, para. 7.1.9 ; Malicorp Limited v. Arab Republic of Egypt, ICSID Case No. ARB/08/18, Award, 7 February 2011, para. 103 .

The triple identity test (i.e. identity of petitum , causa petendi, persona ) is often implicitly or explicitly mentioned by tribunals to determine the res judicata effect of a final decision. 29  However, the identiy of petitum (claim) 30 and cause petendi (cause of action 31 ) are addressed together regularly (herein as “subject-matter”). 32

Apotex Holdings Inc. and Apotex Inc. v. United States of America, ICSID Case No. ARB(AF)/12/1, Award, 25 August 2014, para. 7.13 ; EDF International S.A., SAUR International S.A. and León Participaciones Argentinas S.A. v. Argentine Republic, ICSID Case No. ARB/03/23, Award, 11 June 2012, para. 1132 ; Marco Gavazzi and Stefano Gavazzi v. Romania, ICSID Case No. ARB/12/25, Decision on Jurisdiction, Admissibility and Liability, 21 April 2015, para. 166 ; Marco Gavazzi and Stefano Gavazzi v. Romania, ICSID Case No. ARB/12/25, Dissenting opinion by arbitrator Mauro Rubino-Sammartano, para. 14 ; GPF GP S.à.r.l v. Poland, SCC Case No. 2014/168, Final Award, 29 April 2020, para. 287 ; TECO Guatemala Holdings, LLC v. Republic of Guatemala, ICSID Case No. ARB/10/23, Award (Resubmission Proceeding), 13 May 2020, para. 71 ; Iberdrola Energía, S.A. v. The Republic of Guatemala, PCA Case No. 2017-41, Final Award, 24 August 2020, para. 275 ; Mobil Investments Canada Inc. v. Canada (II), ICSID Case No. ARB/15/6, Procedural Order No. 9 (Scope of Damages Phase), 11 December 2018, para. 37 ; JSC Tashkent Mechanical Plant, JSCB Asaka, JSCB Uzbek Industrial and Construction Bank, and National Bank for Foreign Economic Activity of the Republic of Uzbekistan v. Kyrgyz Republic, ICSID Case No. ARB(AF)/16/4, Award, 17 May 2023, para. 436 .

Inceysa Vallisoletana S.L. v. Republic of El Salvador, ICSID Case No. ARB/03/26, Award, 2 August 2006, paras. 214-217 ; Spółdzielnia Pracy Muszynianka v. Slovak Republic, PCA Case No. 2017-08, Award, 7 October 2020, para. 245 .

TECO Guatemala Holdings, LLC v. Republic of Guatemala, ICSID Case No. ARB/10/23, Award (Resubmission Proceeding), 13 May 2020, para. 71 ; Iberdrola Energía, S.A. v. The Republic of Guatemala, PCA Case No. 2017-41, Final Award, 24 August 2020, para. 283 ; Deutsche Telekom v. India, PCA Case No. 2014-10, Interim Award, 13 December 2017, para. 114 .

Apotex Holdings Inc. and Apotex Inc. v. United States of America, ICSID Case No. ARB(AF)/12/1, Award, 25 August 2014, para. 7.15-7.16 ; Waste Management v. United Mexican States (II), ICSID Case No. ARB(AF)/00/3, Decision on Jurisdiction, 26 June 2002, para. 39 ; Compañía de Aguas del Aconquija S.A. and Vivendi Universal S.A. (formerly Compañía de Aguas del Aconquija, S.A. and Compagnie Générale des Eaux) v. Argentine Republic (I), ICSID Case No. ARB/97/3, Decision on Jurisdiction, 14 November 2005, para. 72 ; Apotex Holdings Inc. and Apotex Inc. v. United States of America, ICSID Case No. ARB(AF)/12/1, Award, 25 August 2014, paras. 7.15-7.16 ; Caratube International Oil Company LLP and Devincci Salah Hourani v. Republic of Kazakhstan (II), ICSID Case No. ARB/13/13, Award, 27 September 2017, para. 491 ; Ioan Micula, Viorel Micula and others v. Romania (II), ICSID Case No. ARB/14/29, Award, 5 March 2020, para. 351 .

In order to assess whether the prior decision had the same subject-matter as the pending arbitration, the prior decision must be assessed on the basis of its dispositif (operative part) and the reasoning – particularly with regard to the matters that the parties brought before the prior tribunal for adjudication. 33

Interpretation of Judgments Nos. 7 and 8 (Factory at Chorzów), PCIJ Series A. No 13, Dissenting Opinion by M. Anzilotti, page. 24 ; Question of the Delimitation of the Continental Shelf between Nicaragua and Colombia beyond 200 nautical miles from the Nicaraguan Coast (Nicaragua v. Colombia), Judgment - Preliminary objections, 17 March 2016, para. 75 ; Apotex Holdings Inc. and Apotex Inc. v. United States of America, ICSID Case No. ARB(AF)/12/1, Award, 25 August 2014, para. 7.30 .

The resulting principles are:

  • The material facts brought before the prior and the subsequent tribunal must be identical. 34  As with jurisdictional decisions (see  above), ICSID tribunals mentioned that they could re-open their own prior decisions when new facts came to light as it is  e.g. provided for in the ICSID Convention ( see  above). 35
  • The underlying legal grounds must be identical, 36  for which functional identity suffices also in treaty matters according to several authorities. 37
  • Res judicata cannot go further than what the prior tribunal actually adjudicated. 38  In particular, the ICJ held that a dismissal for lack of evidence was not res judicata on the underlying legal grounds. 39  Moreover, jurisdictional or admissibility decisions settle only these matters. 40

Waste Management v. United Mexican States (II), ICSID Case No. ARB(AF)/00/3, Decision on Jurisdiction, 26 June 2002, para. 39 ; Compañía de Aguas del Aconquija S.A. and Vivendi Universal S.A. (formerly Compañía de Aguas del Aconquija, S.A. and Compagnie Générale des Eaux) v. Argentine Republic (I), ICSID Case No. ARB/97/3, Decision on Jurisdiction, 14 November 2005, para. 72 ; Apotex Holdings Inc. and Apotex Inc. v. United States of America, ICSID Case No. ARB(AF)/12/1, Award, 25 August 2014, paras. 7.15-7.16 ; Caratube International Oil Company LLP and Devincci Salah Hourani v. Republic of Kazakhstan (II), ICSID Case No. ARB/13/13, Award, 27 September 2017, para. 491 ; Ioan Micula, Viorel Micula and others v. Romania (II), ICSID Case No. ARB/14/29, Award, 5 March 2020, para. 351 .

Burlington Resources, Inc. v. Republic of Ecuador, ICSID Case No. ARB/08/5, Decision on Reconsideration and Award, 7 February 2017, paras. 86, 90, 104-105 ;  Petrobart Limited v. The Kyrgyz Republic (II), SCC Case No. 126/2003, Award, 29 March 2005, para. 351 ; Landesbank Baden-Württemberg, HSH Nordbank AG, Landesbank Hessen-Thüringen Girozentrale and Norddeutsche Landesbank-Girozentrale v. Kingdom of Spain, ICSID Case No. ARB/15/45, Decision on the Respondent's Application for Reconsideration of the Tribunal's Decision of 11 November 2021 Regarding the "Intra-EU" Jurisdictional Objection, 22 February 2023, para. 35

CME Czech Republic B.V. v. The Czech Republic, Final Award, 14 March 2003, para. 433 ; Caratube International Oil Company LLP and Devincci Salah Hourani v. Republic of Kazakhstan (II), ICSID Case No. ARB/13/13, Award, 27 September 2017, paras. 494-495 ;  TECO Guatemala Holdings, LLC v. Republic of Guatemala, ICSID Case No. ARB/10/23, Award, 19 December 2013, paras. 516-518 .

McLachlan, C., Shore, L. and Weiniger, M., International Investment Arbitration: Substantive Principles , 2nd ed., 2017, paras. 4.197-4.198.

Wehland, H., The Coordination of Multiple Proceedings in Investment Treaty Arbitration , 2013, para. 6.87.

Southern Bluefin Tuna Case between Australia and Japan and between New Zealand and Japan, Decision, 4 August 2000, para. 41(h); The MOX Plant Case (Ireland v. United Kingdom), Provisional Measures, ITLOS Case No. 10, Order - Provisional measures, 3 December 2001, para. 50 ; MOX Plant Case (Ireland v. United Kingdom), PCA Case No. 2002-01, Order on Suspension of Proceedings on Jurisdiction and Merits, and Request for Further Provisional Measures, 24 June 2003, para. 28 .

Mobil Investments Canada Inc. v. Canada (II), ICSID Case No. ARB/15/6, Decision on Jurisdiction and Admissibility, 13 July 2018, para. 191 ; TECO Guatemala Holdings, LLC v. Republic of Guatemala, ICSID Case No. ARB/10/23, Award (Resubmission Proceeding), 13 May 2020, para. 83 .

Question of the Delimitation of the Continental Shelf between Nicaragua and Colombia beyond 200 nautical miles from the Nicaraguan Coast (Nicaragua v. Colombia), Judgment - Preliminary objections, 17 March 2016, para. 85 .

Application of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (Bosnia and Herzegovina v. Serbia and Montenegro), Judgment, 26 February 2007, para. 127 ; Waste Management v. United Mexican States (II), ICSID Case No. ARB(AF)/00/3, Decision on Jurisdiction, 26 June 2002, para. 43 .

The problem whether res judicata only applies to the adjudication of the prior petitum (request) as in civil-law doctrine 41 or to the entire reasoning as at common law, is a classic of international res judicata . 42 The doctrine of ‘issue preclusion’, ‘issue estoppel’ or ‘collateral estoppel’ (the terms are used interchangeably in international law), derived from Common Law, precludes a party from re-litigating a point of law or fact that was decided by a previous tribunal and formed an essential element in deciding the dispute. 43 Whether under international law, issue preclusion is a distinct doctrine or only a broad application of res judicata ’s same-subject-matter requirement may be an academic question. 44

ICC Case 7061, unpublished, cited by Hanotiau, Complex Arbitrations (Kluwer, 2006), para. 551.

Mayer, P., Litispendance, connexité et chose jugée dans l’arbitrage international , in Liber Amicorum Claude Reymond – Autour de l’arbitrage, 2004, pp. 198-200.

Bermann, G., Arbitration and Private International Law, General Course on Private International Law, Rec. des cours, Vol. 381, 2015, paras. 539-549 ;  Gaillard, E., Coordination or Chaos – Do the Principles of Comity, Lis Pendens and Res Judicata Apply to International Arbitration?, American Journal of International Arbitration, Vol. 29, 2018, pp. 205, 227 ;  Mayer, P., L’autorité de chose jugée des sentences entre les parties, Rev. Arb., 2016/1, p. 105 .

De Ly, F. and Sheppard, A., ILA Final Report on Res Judicata and Arbitration , Arbitration International, Vol. 25, Issue 1, 2009, p. 67, para. 56.

Born, G., International Commercial Arbitration , 2nd ed., 2014, p. 3776.

Schaffstein, S., The Doctrine of Res Judicata before International Commercial Arbitral Tribunals , 2016, para. 6.236.

Rachel S. Grynberg, Stephen M. Grynberg, Miriam Z. Grynberg and RSM Production Corporation v. Grenada, ICSID Case No. ARB/10/6, Award, 10 December 2010, para. 7.1.1 .

Griffith, G. and Seif, I., Chapter 8: Work in Progress: Res Judicata and Issue Estoppel in Investment Arbitration , in Kaplan, N. and Moser, M. J. (eds.), Jurisdiction, Admissibility and Choice of Law in International Arbitration: Liber Amicorum Michael Pryles, (© Gavan Griffith & Isabella Seif; Kluwer Law International 2018) p. 122:

“Investment tribunals also have applied mixed and confusing nomenclature within these contexts, to reach, in most matters, objectively ‘correct’ results to vindicate the underlying public policy for there to be finality. Some use the term res judicata without particularising that they are applying issue estoppel. Some do not apparently recognize concepts of issue estoppel as a separate exclusionary principle. Others treat res judicata and issue estoppel as entirely distinct doctrines.”

Adel A Hamadi Al Tamimi v. Sultanate of Oman, ICSID Case No. ARB/11/33, Award, 3 November 2015, para. 131 ; Tokios Tokelés v. Ukraine, ICSID Case No. ARB/02/18, Award, 26 July 2007, para. 98 ; Marco Gavazzi and Stefano Gavazzi v. Romania, ICSID Case No. ARB/12/25, Decision on Jurisdiction, Admissibility and Liability, 21 April 2015, paras. 164-166 ; British Caribbean Bank Limited & Belize Bank Limited v. Government of Belize, LCIA Case No. 81116, Final Award, 15 January 2013, para. 77 .

On substance, investment treaty tribunals tend to favour issue preclusion. 45

Rachel S. Grynberg, Stephen M. Grynberg, Miriam Z. Grynberg and RSM Production Corporation v. Grenada, ICSID Case No. ARB/10/6, Award, 10 December 2010, para. 7.1.2 ; Apotex Holdings Inc. and Apotex Inc. v. United States of America, ICSID Case No. ARB(AF)/12/1, Award, 25 August 2014, paras. 7.18, 7.23, 7.59 ; Ampal-American Israel Corp., EGI-Fund (08-10) Investors LLC, EGI-Series Investments LLC, BSS-EMG Investors LLC and David Fischer v. Arab Republic of Egypt, ICSID Case No. ARB/12/11, Decision on Liability and Heads of Loss, 21 February 2017, paras. 272, 281-282 ; Caratube International Oil Company LLP and Devincci Salah Hourani v. Republic of Kazakhstan (II), ICSID Case No. ARB/13/13, Award, 27 September 2017, para. 460 ; RREEF Infrastructure (G.P.) Limited and RREEF Pan-European Infrastructure Two Lux S.à r.l. v. Kingdom of Spain, ICSID Case No. ARB/13/30, Decision on Responsibility and on the Principles of Quantum, 30 November 2018, para. 209 ; TECO Guatemala Holdings, LLC v. Republic of Guatemala, ICSID Case No. ARB/10/23, Award (Resubmission Proceeding), 13 May 2020, para. 80 ; Víctor Pey Casado and President Allende Foundation v. Republic of Chile, ICSID Case No. ARB/98/2, Decision on Annulment, 8 January 2020, paras. 643-644 ; Marco Gavazzi and Stefano Gavazzi v. Romania, ICSID Case No. ARB/12/25, Dissenting opinion by arbitrator Mauro Rubino-Sammartano, para. 15 ;  Border Timbers Limited, Timber Products International (Private) Limited, and Hangani Development Co. (Private) Limited v. Republic of Zimbabwe , ICSID Case No. ARB/10/25, Judgment of the High Court of Justice of England and Wales [2024] EWHC 58, 19 January 2024, para. 35 .

In one case, an objection of ‘collateral estoppel’ was raised unsuccessfully with regard to a separate, yet related issue, i.e. whether arguments that were not but should have been raised in earlier proceedings are also precluded (see also Abuse of Process ). 46

Petrobart Limited v. The Kyrgyz Republic (II), SCC Case No. 126/2003, Award, 29 March 2005, para. 364 .

All parties of the subsequent proceedings must either be parties to the prior decision, successors, or “privies”. “Privity” requires a certain proximity. 47  Subsidiaries and majority shareholders are “privies” according to several authorities, 48  whereas the CME and Eskosol tribunals held otherwise due to the succinct facts. 49  Privity under international law between the State and State-owned companies was mentioned in an obiter dictum . 50

Pika, M., Third-Party Effects of Arbitral Awards , 2019, Chapters 3, 4 and 8.

McLachlan, C., Shore, L. and Weiniger, M., International Investment Arbitration: Substantive Principles , 2nd ed., 2017, para. 4.188.

Rachel S. Grynberg, Stephen M. Grynberg, Miriam Z. Grynberg and RSM Production Corporation v. Grenada, ICSID Case No. ARB/10/6, Award, 10 December 2010, para. 7.1.5 ; Apotex Holdings Inc. and Apotex Inc. v. United States of America, ICSID Case No. ARB(AF)/12/1, Award, 25 August 2014, para. 7.40 ; Ampal-American Israel Corp., EGI-Fund (08-10) Investors LLC, EGI-Series Investments LLC, BSS-EMG Investors LLC and David Fischer v. Arab Republic of Egypt, ICSID Case No. ARB/12/11, Decision on Liability and Heads of Loss, 21 February 2017, paras. 260-268 ; Ampal-American Israel Corp., EGI-Fund (08-10) Investors LLC, EGI-Series Investments LLC, BSS-EMG Investors LLC and David Fischer v. Arab Republic of Egypt, ICSID Case No. ARB/12/11, Decision on Jurisdiction, 1 February 2016, paras. 330-331, 333, 339 ; Orascom TMT Investments S.à r.l. v. People's Democratic Republic of Algeria, ICSID Case No. ARB/12/35, Award, 31 May 2017, paras. 546-547 ; Unión Fenosa Gas, S.A. v. Arab Republic of Egypt, ICSID Case No. ARB/14/4, Award, 31 August 2018, para. 11.32 .

CME Czech Republic B.V. v. The Czech Republic, Final Award, 14 March 2003, paras. 426, 431, 436 ; Eskosol S.p.A. in liquidazione v. Italian Republic, ICSID Case No. ARB/15/50, Decision on Respondent's Application under Rule 41(5), 20 March 2017, paras. 167-168 .

Helnan International Hotels A/S v. Arab Republic of Egypt, ICSID Case No. ARB/05/19, Award, 3 July 2008, paras. 127-128 .

National judgments on treaty/customary international law are not binding on international tribunals. 51 This rule serves the rationale enshrined in Article 27 VCLT .

Selwyn Case, Opinion of Plumley, Umpire, 1 January 1903, page. 380 ; GAMI Investments, Inc. v. United Mexican States, Final Award, 15 November 2004, paras. 38-41 ; Hesham Talaat M. Al-Warraq v. The Republic of Indonesia, Final Award, 15 December 2014, para. 488 ; Fraport AG Frankfurt Airport Services Worldwide v. Republic of the Philippines (I), ICSID Case No. ARB/03/25, Award, 16 August 2007, para. 391 ; Inceysa Vallisoletana S.L. v. Republic of El Salvador, ICSID Case No. ARB/03/26, Award, 2 August 2006, paras. 209-217 ; Landesbank Baden-Württemberg, HSH Nordbank AG, Landesbank Hessen-Thüringen Girozentrale and Norddeutsche Landesbank-Girozentrale v. Kingdom of Spain, ICSID Case No. ARB/15/45, Decision on the Respondent's Application for Reconsideration of the Tribunal's Decision of 11 November 2021 Regarding the "Intra-EU" Jurisdictional Objection, 22 February 2023, para. 46 .

By contrast, generally, if the national judgment, adjudicated on a contract or national law and the international tribunal deal with a treaty claim, res judicata will fail for difference in subject-matter. 52 The national judgment can only be a fact 53 on e. g. national law’s content 54 or a measure. The fate of subsequent claims under umbrella clauses depends on whether the latter does or does not create independent treaty rights.

Desert Line Projects LLC v. Republic of Yemen, ICSID Case No. ARB/05/17, Award, 6 February 2008, para. 136 ; TECO Guatemala Holdings, LLC v. Republic of Guatemala, ICSID Case No. ARB/10/23, Award, 19 December 2013, para. 260 ; Helnan International Hotels A/S v. Arab Republic of Egypt, ICSID Case No. ARB/05/19, Award, 3 July 2008, paras. 123-124, 131 ; Repsol YPF Ecuador S.A. v. Empresa Estatal Petróleos del Ecuador (Petroecuador), ICSID Case No. ARB/01/10, Decision on Jurisdiction, 23 January 2003, paras. 46-47 .

Industria Nacional de Alimentos, S.A. and Indalsa Perú, S.A. (formerly Empresas Lucchetti, S.A. and Lucchetti Perú, S.A.) v. Republic of Peru, ICSID Case No. ARB/03/4, Decision on Annulment, 5 September 2007, paras. 87-88 ; Adel A Hamadi Al Tamimi v. Sultanate of Oman, ICSID Case No. ARB/11/33, Award, 3 November 2015, para. 358 .

Fraport AG Frankfurt Airport Services Worldwide v. Republic of the Philippines (I), ICSID Case No. ARB/03/25, Dissenting Opinion of Mr. Bernardo M. Cremades (Award), paras. 26 .

If a non -treaty based arbitral tribunal deals with a claim on the same subject-matter as a prior judgment, res judicata can generally apply. 55  

HOCHTIEF Aktiengesellschaft v. Argentine Republic, ICSID Case No. ARB/07/31, Separate and Dissenting Opinion of J. Christopher Thomas, Q.C. (Decision on Jurisdiction), para. 9 ; Marco Gavazzi and Stefano Gavazzi v. Romania, ICSID Case No. ARB/12/25, Dissenting opinion by arbitrator Mauro Rubino-Sammartano, paras. 9-11 .

When res judicata is inapplicable due to the requirements set out above, preclusion might apply under the doctrine of abuse of process or due to a factual effect of the prior decision erga omnes . 56

Pika, M., Third-Party Effects of Arbitral Awards, Kluwer, 2019, Chapter 7.

Cheng, B., General Principles of Law as Applied by International Courts and Tribunals , 1953, Chapter 17.

Gaillard, E., Coordination or Chaos – Do the Principles of Comity, Lis Pendens and Res Judicata Apply to International Arbitration? , American Journal of International Arbitration, 2018, pp. 205-242 .

Mayer, P., Litispendance, connexité et chose jugée dans l’arbitrage international , in Liber Amicorum Claude Reymond – Autour de l’arbitrage, 2004, pp. 185-203.

McLachlan, C., Shore, L. and Weininger, M., International Investment Arbitration: Substantive Principles , 2 nd ed. 2017, paras. 4.169-4.199.

Radicati di Brozolo, L.G., Res Judicata and International Arbitral Awards , Post Award Issues , ASA Special Series No. 38 , 2011, pp. 127-140 .

Shaw, M. (ed.), Rosenne’s Law and Practice of the International Court: 1920-2015, 5th ed., 2017, Vol. III, Chapter 27, para. 391.

Access to the PDF of this document is reserved upon request to subscribers of Jus Mundi - Legal Practice offer. The HTML version of this document remains fully available on our website.

Request the PDF

This Wiki Note has not been submitted yet. We continuously identify new themes to add to the existing Wiki Notes as well as Contributors to author new Notes. Become a Contributor, submit your candidacy to author this Wiki Note.

Oops! You have reached the maximum limit for alerts (10 max. for arbitrators)

Delete an existing alert to create a new one

Oops! You have reached the maximum limit for alerts (10 max. for cases)

This feature requires a subscription.

Get access to the most extensive & reliable source of information in arbitration

Already registered ? Sign in

An error just occurred, please try again

You need Premium access to be able to use this feature.

Login to access this feature.

Call us now or Email! 804-251-1620 or 757-810-5614 [email protected]

Corey R Pollard

  • Answers to FAQs
  • Types of Benefits
  • Brain Injury (TBI)
  • Car Accidents
  • Intentional Torts
  • Spinal Cord Injury Lawyer

Res Judicata: A Guide

Learn how claim preclusion affects your personal injury or workers comp case.

  • Virginia Personal Injury Attorney
  • Res Judicata: Understanding Claim Preclusion

What is Res Judicata?

Claim preclusion encourages parties to pursue all legal claims against each other at once.

You have one shot to bring your claims against a defendant for a specific incident in court. 

This limitation stems from the Seventh Amendment of the U.S. Constitution , which says, “no fact tried by a jury shall be otherwise reexamined in any court of the United States, and the doctrine of res judicata (also called claim preclusion). 

Res judicata is a common law doctrine (created by judges through written opinions) that bars parties who have received a final judgment on a claim’s merits from litigating that cause of action again. 

But res judicata goes further; it bars the litigation of causes of action that you could have brought in the first case. As courts have held, res judicata applies to claims tendered in the pleadings and “to every claim which properly belonged to the subject of litigation and which the parties, by the exercise of reasonable diligence, might have raised at the time.” 

Res judicata’s rationale: “Every litigant should have opportunity to present whatever grievance he may have,” but if allowed to do so and “having failed to avail himself of it, he must accept the consequences.”

This article analyzes the elements of res judicata so you thoroughly plan and prosecute your civil action  or  workers comp claim to avoid claim preclusion in the future. Remember – the law gives you one fair hearing for a particular event. And this information can help you make the most of your day in court. 

In addition, you can use this doctrine to defeat an employer’s application to stop workers compensation benefits . 

Keep reading for more information. 

Then call our law firm so we can start working for you: 804-251-1620 or 757-810-5614. See why others regularly list us with Virginia’s best attorneys for personal injury, car crashes , construction site accidents , traumatic brain injury (TBI) , and work injury litigation . 

The Meaning of Res Judicata

Res judicata is a Latin term meaning “a thing decided.”

Black’s Law Dictionary (11th Edition) defines the doctrine as an issue definitively settled by judicial decision.

In practice, however, courts have divided res judicata into several elements, which we discuss below.

Res Judicata Concepts: Issue Preclusion vs. Claim Preclusion

The doctrine of res judicata involves two related but distinct concepts: issue preclusion and claim preclusion.

The first concept is issue preclusion (sometimes called collateral estoppel), which bars a party from relitigating any issue of fact or law decided in a past case and necessary to that judgment.

The second concept, claim preclusion (sometimes called res judicata), bars parties from raising issues (claims and defenses) they could have submitted in the first action – even if the first action did not decide these issues.

Courts have divided claim preclusion into two smaller categories: bar and merger.

Bar is the principle that a plaintiff cannot relitigate a lost case.

In contrast, the merger concept means a plaintiff cannot relitigate a lawsuit it won to recover more damages in a second action.

Collateral estoppel has a narrower scope than claim preclusion.

But these concepts are intertwined, and the courts sometimes interchange the terms.

This article focuses on the claim preclusion part of res judicata.

What are the Elements of Res Judicata?

Since res judicata comes from the common law, its elements may vary between courts.

However, Virginia’s definition of res judicata gives an overview of the doctrine’s elements.

Rule 1:6 of the Rules of the Virginia Supreme Court, Res Judicata Claim Preclusion , says:

A party whose claim for relief arising from identified conduct, a transaction, or an occurrence, is decided on the merits by a final judgment, shall be forever barred from prosecuting any second or subsequent civil action against the same opposing party or parties on any claim or cause of action that arises from that same conduct, transaction or occurrence, whether or not the legal theory or rights asserted in the second or subsequent action were raised in the prior lawsuit, and regardless of the legal elements or the evidence upon which any claims in the prior proceeding depended, or the particular remedies sought.

The elements of res judicata, therefore, include the following:

  • (1) an attempt to relitigate a claim when a court has entered a final judgment on the merits;
  • (2) the exact parties (or the defendants in the first and second lawsuit are in privity); and
  • (3) the same cause of action.

Now we will discuss each prong of the res judicata test.

Relitigation

Determining whether a party is trying to relitigate a dispute that was the subject matter of a past lawsuit is usually the easy part of a res judicata analysis.

But deciding whether an adjudication on the merits occurred may require closer examination.

A judgment is final for res judicata when it decides the case’s merits, and “nothing more is necessary to settle the rights of the parties or the extent of those rights.”

Case law and civil procedural rules (Rules 12(b)(6) and 41(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure ) offer guidance on the types of court rulings considered adjudications on the merits.

For example, the following judgments are final for claim preclusion purposes:

  • A judge’s verdict
  • A jury’s verdict
  • A final judgment based on a determination by the Workers Compensation Commission
  • Dismissal based on a failure to state a claim
  • Dismissal based on a failure to prosecute the claim
  • Involuntary dismissal based on a failure to comply with procedural rules or a court order
  • A confirmed bankruptcy plan

But the following court judgments are exceptions to the res judicata doctrine and are not considered an adjudication on the merits:

  • Dismissal based on lack of jurisdiction
  • Dismissal based on improper venue
  • Dismissal based on failing to join a party under Rule 19 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure
  • Voluntary dismissal (called a nonsuit in Virginia) : No ruling is made on the merits of a claim or counterclaim when nonsuited; therefore, claim preclusion does not apply.
  • Dismissal without prejudice (per the court order)

Same Parties (or Closely Related Parties)

Determining whether an action involves the same parties as a previously decided lawsuit is simple in a typical personal injury or workers comp claim involving individuals and a couple of employers (or insurer or third-party claim administrator).

But if the second action adds individuals, corporate entities, or organizations not named in the first lawsuit, you must determine if privity exists.

Courts decide whether privity exists on a case-by-case basis.

The privity analysis examines the parties’ interests and relationships to see if a party’s interests are so identical that representation by one party is a representation of the other party’s legal rights.

For example, suppose you lose a product liability lawsuit against Company A.

One year later, Company B buys Company A.

Then you bring an action against Company B for the same incident and injuries as your first lawsuit against Company A.

The court may find res judicata precludes your second action because Company B is a successor to Company A.

Same Cause of Action

The last prong of the res judicata test – same cause of action – creates the most confusion in contract and tort claims.

After a judicial opinion created confusion over the proper test for determining whether claims come from the same cause of action, the Virginia Supreme Court enacted Rule 1:6.

This rule defines a cause of action as an “identified conduct, a transaction, or an occurrence.” And courts will determine whether the causes of action in dispute share a common nucleus of operative facts and need the same types of evidence to prove in answering this test.

What is the Purpose of the Doctrine of Res Judicata?

Courts justify the doctrine of res judicata by pointing to several public policy considerations it helps:

  • Avoiding confusion
  • Bringing an end to litigation
  • Conserving judicial resources
  • Establishing certainty and reliance in legal relationships
  • Preventing the use of the legal system to harass parties 
  • Prohibiting a plaintiff from obtaining multiple judgments against the same defendant for the same incident
  • Saving time and money for litigants by eliminating redundant pretrial discovery, hearings, motions, briefs, and trials
  • Stopping inconsistent and contradictory rulings from different judges or courts on the same issue

In simple terms, res judicata promotes judicial efficiency.

When Does Res Judicata Apply?

The doctrine of res judicata applies to all criminal and civil actions unless a statute specifically says otherwise.

Does Res Judicata Apply to Workers Compensation Cases?

The Virginia Court of Appeals  has held that res judicata principles apply to workers compensation claims (decisions from deputy commissioners and the full commission).

But the doctrine of res judicata may give way when it conflicts with a more critical public policy, such as the Workers Compensation Act’s humanitarian purpose: to protect injured workers. As the Court of Appeals of Virginia said:

When claimants come before the Commission, they are injured and either unable to work or unable to work at full capacity. This reality limits a claimant’s bargaining power. [citation omitted]. An injured claimant is more likely to need immediate compensation and, absent protective public policy measures, may “be forced by their circumstances to agree to [immediate] awards that only provide compensation for some of their work-related injuries.” [] Thus, we have determined that “[t]he prinicples of res judicata should not be applied in a way that facilitates such inequitable results.” []. 

This principle is a critical reason why the Virginia General Assembly passed  Code Section 65.2-706.2 , Claims Not Barred, in 2021. 

This new law says:

No order issued by the Commission awarding or denying benefits shall bar by res judicata any claim by an employee or cause a waiver, abandonment, or dismissal of any claim by an employee if the order does not expressly adjudicate such claim. 

You should ensure any agreement form you sign does not include language to trigger the res judicata defense in a workers comp claim. 

Does Res Judicata Apply to Social Security Disability Claims?

The Social Security Administration (SSA)  applies administrative res judicata  “at all levels of the claims process to avoid deciding an issue that” it has “decided based on the same facts, same issues, same parties, and same adjudicative period.” 

20 CFR 404.957(c)(1) and 416.1457(c)(1) establish the general rule that administrative res judicata exists in Social Security disability claims (SSDI and SSI) when:

  • The SSA made a past determination or decision under the same subpart for the same claimant;
  • The past determination was based on the same facts and the same issues; and
  • The past decision has become final by either administrative or judicial action. 

But claim preclusion does not apply to disability claims when the past decision is not administratively final or there has been a change in the specific section of the Listing of Impairments, a statute, or legal precedent. 

In addition, the SSA will not dismiss your claim when you seek SSDI or SSI benefits for a period after the date of the final administrative determination in your past claim (often the administrative law judge’s (ALJ’s) opinion after a hearing ). 

Does Res Judicata Apply if I Bring the Second Action in a Different Court?

A court will apply the preclusive effect of res judicata even when a different court entered the judgment in the first action.

For example, the United States Supreme Court has held that the U.S. Constitution’s Full Faith and Credit Clause requires federal courts to give the same preclusive effect to state court judgments that those judgments would receive in courts of the state from which the initial judicial decision emerged.

In addition, the Virginia Supreme Court has said it will “accord the same preclusive effect of res judicata to foreign judgments ad do courts in the foreign jurisdiction.”

Res Judicata Does not Apply to Appeals

The final-judgment rule says that appellate courts, such as the Virginia Supreme Court and the Court of Appeals of Virginia, will not hear appeals unless a lower court enters a final judgment. 

This rule seems inconsistent with claim preclusion, where a court will dismiss a second action if another court has entered a final judgment on the merits. 

Appeals, however, are an exception because the judicial system considers them an extension of the initial lawsuit, not a new action. 

Who Can Raise a Res Judicata Defense?

Res judicata is an affirmative defense a party must raise in defense pleadings (usually the answer to the complaint or a motion to dismiss). Other affirmative defenses include the statute of limitations , contributory negligence , and the assumption of risk doctrine ( liability waiver , implied risk, etc.).

As such, the defendant in a personal injury case will raise res judicata if the parties have litigated a similar lawsuit from the same event or transaction to its end.

However, a common situation in workers comp cases gives the exception to the general rule that defendants plead the res judicata doctrine.

The employer and its insurer (or claim administrator such as Gallagher Bassett or Sedgwick ) may apply for a hearing to stop workers comp payments .

In this scenario, you become the “defendant” because the employer has the burden of proving benefits should stop, and you can raise defenses to the application.

And one of these defenses is the doctrine of res judicata.

If you have a Workers Compensation Award Letter or a final judicial opinion addressing the same arguments raised by the employer, you can raise res judicata.

Who Has the Burden of Proving the Doctrine of Res Judicata Applies?

The party asserting res judicata must prove by a preponderance of the evidence (more likely than not) that the judge (or deputy commissioner in workers comp) rendered a final judgment in its favor.

Does Res Judicata Apply to Counterclaims?

Whether claim preclusion applies to counterclaims, crossclaims, or third-party pleadings arising from the same occurrence depends on what court has jurisdiction over your case.

For example, in Virginia, Rule 1:6 says res judicata applies to counterclaims, crossclaims, and third-party pleading.

The federal court rules are similar, with some nuances.

Rule 13 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure,  Counterclaim and Crossclaim , says a party must state any compulsory counterclaims (any claim arising out of the occurrence that is the subject matter of the opposing party’s claim that does not require adding another party over whom the court does not have jurisdiction) or risk claim preclusion. But res judicata does not apply to permissive counterclaims. 

More Exceptions to Claim Preclusion

The claim preclusion rule does not bar a party or a party’s insurer from bringing separate personal injury and property damage lawsuits arising from the same conduct, transaction, or occurrence.

Nor will res judicata bar declaratory judgment actions.

Top-Rated Lawyers to Help You Overcome Legal Doctrines Presenting Procedural Hurdles

Many procedural rules can prevent you from recovering monetary damages caused by someone else, even when you can win on the case’s substance.

Instead of trying to overcome hurdles such as res judicata and claim preclusion yourself, get a top-rated attorney to help.

Contact us today to get started with your claim.

  • Recent Posts

Corey Pollard

  • Workplace Injuries in 2022: BLS Releases Statistics - December 15, 2023
  • SSA Proposes a Rule Change to Work History Evaluation - November 1, 2023
  • Contract Negotiations Between UPS and the Teamsters Collapse - July 5, 2023

main logo

Social Security

Program operations manual system (poms).

TN 13 (06-11)

GN 03101.160 Res Judicata

A.  definition of res judicata.

Administrative res judicata is a rule in civil law and an administrative policy. We apply it at all levels of the claims process to avoid deciding an issue that we have previously decided based on the same facts, same issues, same parties, and same adjudicative period.

The purpose of administrative res judicata is to protect SSA from having to consider the same claim (on which it has already issued a determination) repeatedly.

In all cases where a claimant files a subsequent application and we deny the subsequent application based on res judicata, the adjudicator will first consider whether reopening and revising applies.

Res judicata can apply to post adjudicative issues as well as issues involved with the filing of subsequent applications.

B.  Applying res judicata

If a new application is filed with the same issue by the same party and no new facts or evidence, the application may be denied on the basis of res judicata.

If anything has changed (including law and regulations), we cannot apply res judicata, but must make a determination or decision based on the merits of the application.

EXAMPLE: Res Judicata Applies

A claimant denied on the first application and does not appeal (or appeals unsuccessfully). The claimant files a second application, alleges the same onset date, submits no new evidence, and the earnings requirement (date last insured) was last met before or as of the date of the last determination. Since the issue is the same and the claimant submits no new evidence, we would deny the claim based on res judicata.

EXAMPLE: Res Judicata Does Not Apply

Using the example above, if the claimant did submit new evidence; we would not apply res judicata but would adjudicate the second application and give the claimant the right to appeal any aspect of our determination.

IMPORTANT: If the claimant's disability insured status continues after the date of the last determination, we cannot apply res judicata to the unadjudicated period (i.e., the period after the date of the last determination). This is true regardless of whether the claimant alleges the same onset date, impairment and there appears to be no change in the claimant's condition. See DI 27516.001 for field office instructions on how to determine whether to apply res judicata to a Title II disability claim.

C.  Postadjudicative issues

EXAMPLE: We denied the claimant’s waiver of recovery of an overpayment based on “not without fault.” Six months later the claimant files another waiver request. When the adjudicator reviews it, there is no new evidence. A second waiver determination is not required. The adjudicator dismisses the request based on res judicata.

Skip to Main Content - Keyboard Accessible

Res-judicata.

  • U.S. Constitution Annotated

The following state regulations pages link to this page.

  • Firm Culture
  • What Sets Us Apart?
  • Commitment to Community
  • Diversity and Inclusion
  • Freeman Foundation
  • Trial College
  • Professionals
  • Accounting Defense
  • Business Litigation
  • Business Divorce Litigation
  • Civil Litigation
  • Fiduciary Litigation
  • Minority Shareholder Litigation
  • Partnership Litigation
  • Digital Asset & Cryptocurrency Law
  • Nonprofits & Exempt Organizations
  • Outside General Counsel
  • Tax Litigation
  • Conservation Easement Defense
  • Criminal Tax Defense
  • FBAR Penalty Defense
  • International & Offshore Tax Compliance
  • IRS Penalty Defense
  • IRS Collections Defense
  • Micro-Captives
  • Streamlined
  • State Local Tax
  • Tax Court Litigation
  • Tax Shelter Litigation
  • Tax Promoter Defense
  • White-Collar
  • Cyber Crime Defense
  • Civil RICO Litigation
  • Forensic Accounting and Investigations
  • Healthcare Fraud
  • Intellectual Property
  • Money Laundering
  • Securities Fraud
  • Accounting Firms
  • Construction 
  • Cross-Border
  • Family Offices
  • Finance and Banking
  • Government Sector
  • Investment Funds
  • Manufacturing
  • Private Equity
  • Real Estate
  • Startups and Emerging Companies
  • Trusts & Estates
  • INTERNATIONAL TAX SYMPOSIUM 2021
  • INTERNATIONAL TAX SYMPOSIUM 2022
  • Recognition
  • Insights Blog
  • Treaty Resources
  • Partnership Representatives and BBA Resources
  • Cryptocurrency and Blockchain Law Resources

Texas Courts and The Doctrine of Res Judicata

Share this article.

  • Texas supreme court litigation blogs
  • The tax court in brief blogs
  • Tax litigation blogs
  • White-collar blogs
  • Cross-border tax blogs

Freeman Law

Freeman Law

Freeman Law is a tax, white-collar, and litigation boutique law firm. We offer unique and valued counsel, insight, and experience. Our firm is where clients turn when the stakes are high and the issues are complex.

The doctrine of res judicata, or claim preclusion, bars a second action by parties and those in privity with them on matters actually litigated in a previous suit, as well as claims that could have been litigated in the prior suit through the exercise of diligence.

In a broad sense, res judicata is the generic term used to describe a group of related concepts governing the conclusive effect given final judgments.  There are two principal categories within this doctrine: (1) claim preclusion (res judicata); and (2) issue preclusion (collateral estoppel).

What Elements Establish Res Judicata?

Res judicata is an affirmative defense.  To establish res judicata, the defendant must demonstrate:

  • a prior final judgment on the merits by a court of competent jurisdiction;
  • identity of parties or those in privity with them; and
  • a second action based on the same claims as were raised or could have been raised in the first action.

Res Judicata vs. Collateral Estoppel

The general doctrine of res judicata consists of two principal categories: (1) res judicata or claim preclusion; and (2) collateral estoppel or issue preclusion. The doctrines of res judicata and collateral estoppel are not one and the same.

Res judicata precludes a second action by the parties or their privies on matters actually litigated and on  causes of action or claims  that arise out of the same subject matter and could have been litigated in the first suit.

On the other hand, collateral estoppel prohibits relitigation of particular  issues  already resolved in a prior suit.

To invoke the doctrine of collateral estoppel, a party must establish:

  • the facts sought to be litigated in the first action were fully and fairly litigated in the prior action;
  • those facts were essential to the judgment in the first action; and
  • the parties were cast as adversaries in the first action.

Moreover, although mutuality is no longer required between the parties, the party against whom collateral estoppel is asserted must have been a party or in privity with a party in the prior litigation.

  • Res Judicata

Res judicata, also known as claim preclusion, prevents the relitigation of a claim or cause of action that was adjudicated and resolved by a final judgment, as well as all related matters that with the use of diligence could or should have been litigated in the prior suit.   

Texas and The Transactional Approach

Texas follows the transactional approach to res judicata.  The transactional approach results in claim preclusion if a defendant does not bring as a counterclaim any claim arising out of the transaction or occurrence that is the subject matter of the opposing party’s suit.

Under this approach, Texas courts examine the factual bases, not the legal theories, presented in the cases.  The main concern is whether the cases share the same nucleus of operative facts.  In determining whether the facts arose out of a single transaction, Texas courts consider whether the facts are related in time, space, origin, or motivation, and whether they form a convenient unit for trial.

Res judicata applies when a party in the second suit is in privity with a party in the first suit.  Privity connotes those who are so connected with a party to the judgment in the law such that the party to the judgment represented the same legal right.  A party can be in privity in at least three ways:

  • it can control an action even if it is not a party to it;
  • its interests can be represented by a party to the action; or
  • it can be a successor-in-interest, deriving its claim through a party to the prior action.

Privity is not, however, established by the fact that a party happens to be interested in the same question or in proving the same facts.

External Resources:

Business Litigation Attorney

Need assistance in managing the business tax audit process ? Freeman Law’s representations include disputes involving a variety of claims, such as breaches of fiduciary duty, business torts and other commercial disputes, partnership disputes, misrepresentation, deceptive trade practices act (“DTPA”) violations, tortious interference, extortion, Texas Theft Statute violations, civil conspiracy, and cyber and computer violations. We offer value-driven services and provide practical solutions to complex tax issues. Schedule a consultation or call (214) 984-3000 to discuss our business litigation services .  

Join Our Mailing List:

Get social:.

Mestaz Law

What is the Difference Between Collateral Estoppel and Res Judicata?

What is the Difference Between Collateral Estoppel and Res Judicata?

Collateral estoppel and res judicata are similar affirmative defenses to legal claims for relief. Each depends on a prior final judgment. But there are important differences.

Collateral estoppel

The doctrine of collateral estoppel holds that an issue that has been litigated cannot be litigated again. For collateral estoppel to apply, the following requirements must be met:

  • The issue in the first and second case are the same;
  • The party against whom the doctrine is invoked had the full opportunity to litigate the issue;
  • That party actually litigated the issue;
  • The issue litigated must have been necessary to the final judgment.

An example of collateral estoppel: Ted, a real estate developer, starts a multi-project joint venture with several investors under the terms of a single contract. Alice, one of the investors, sues Ted for breach of contract, alleging that he deprived her of her full share of the profits by overstating the costs on one of the projects. The jury finds for Alice on that basis and the court enters judgment for Alice accordingly. Later, another investor, Bob, sues Ted on the same basis—that he too was shorted because Ted overstated costs. Ted contends that his calculations were correct. Under the doctrine of collateral estoppel, Ted would be precluded from relitigating this issue because he already litigated that issue and it was necessary to the final judgment for Alice. Thus, the court would simply decide this issue in Bob’s favor and Bob would prevail if he can prove the other elements of his claim.

Res Judicata

The doctrine of res judicata bars the re-litigation of a claim that has already been litigated. There are four factors that must be satisfied for res judicata to apply:

  • A previous case in which the same claim was raised or could have been raised;
  • The judgment in the prior case involved the same parties or their privies;
  • The previous case was resolved by a final judgment on the merits;
  • The parties had the full and fair opportunity to be heard.

An example of res judicata: Alice sues Ted for breaching the real estate joint venture contract, but in this example Ted prevails. Based on the jury verdict, the court enters judgment for Ted and finds that, in fact, Ted paid Alice what she was owed. Several months later, Alice sues Ted again, this time for fraud, alleging that Ted duped her into the contract by lying about how much money she would make. She argues that even though she may have been paid what she was owed under the contract, the contract itself was procured by fraud and therefore Ted should pay her what he promised. The court should dismiss Alice’s claim because even though it is a different theory and cause of action—fraud rather than breach of contract—that claim could have been raised in the original lawsuit.

When you are facing any type of business dispute, you need an experienced Arizona trial attorney to obtain the best possible result. Contact Mestaz Law at (602) 806-2068 to speak with us about your case.

  • Category: Business Litigation
  • By Daniel Mestaz
  • February 15, 2019
  • Leave a comment

Request a Consultation

Blog Categories

  • Business Divorce (19)
  • Business Litigation (26)
  • Civil Litigation (4)
  • Commercial Litigation (3)
  • Contract Disputes (34)
  • Copyright Law (18)
  • Employment Litigation (8)
  • Flash Updates (7)
  • Intellectual Property Litigation (9)
  • Newsletter (11)
  • Trade Secrets (2)
  • Trademark (3)

Recent Blogs

December 21, 2023

December 19, 2023

December 14, 2023

December 13, 2023

December 12, 2023

The information you obtain at this site is not, nor is it intended to be, legal advice. You should consult an attorney for advice regarding your individual situation. We invite you to contact us, though doing so does not create an attorney-client relationship. Please do not send any confidential information to us until such time as an attorney-client relationship has been established. Our description of what we believe to be superior technology and how we win cases reflects our typical approach to litigation, which we believe:  (i) gives us a competitive advantage, and (ii) is responsible for any success we have had. But we do not win every case. Other lawyers may have technology or approaches that they believe gives them an advantage. Also, the results that we have obtained in other cases or that are described in our clients’ testimonials do not guarantee, promise, or predict the outcome of your case, which depends on the law, facts, and evidence specific to it.

Malay Mail

No new lawsuits against vernacular schools can be filed on same issue, says lawyer for Dong Zong and Jiao Zong

P UTRAJAYA, Feb 20 — Following the Federal Court’s majority ruling today, no new court cases can be filed to challenge the constitutionality of vernacular schools in Malaysia on the same legal points, a lawyer said.

Lawyer Wong Kong Fatt, who represented two organisations overseeing the affairs of local schools that use the Chinese language to teach, was commenting on the implications if the Federal Court decision today.

Wong, who is the lead counsel for United Chinese School Teachers’ Association of Malaysia (Jiao Zong) and United Chinese School Committees’ Association of Malaysia (Dong Zong), noted that the Federal Court’s majority decision meant that a previous ruling by the Court of Appeal — which said vernacular schools are constitutional — remains valid.

Since the Federal Court dismissed an application by two non-governmental organisations — Islamic Education Development Council (Mappim) and Confederation of Malaysian Writers Association (Gapena) — for leave to pursue their appeal against the Court of Appeal decision, Wong said this will be the end of the case.

“In fact, today leave is already refused, and therefore the applicants cannot go further with any appeal. Because the Federal Court is the apex court, so there’s no more appeal,” the Dong Zong and Jiao Zong lawyer told reporters at the lobby of the Putrajaya court complex here following the Federal Court’s decision.

When asked about the hypothetical possibility of other NGOs mounting court challenges against vernacular schools in the future, Wong said the same matter cannot be relitigated in the courts due to the legal principle of res judicata.

“They cannot challenge via the same provisions, because the court already decided the issue and that will be res judicata.

“Res judicata means a court has decided on the same provisions of laws, so there shouldn’t be another case, another party bringing the same matter to the court for any further litigation. So that’s the end of the matter,” he said. This is because the matter had been decided on its merits by the Court of Appeal.

When asked if this means it would be unlikely that any other NGOs can file new court challenges against vernacular schools, Wong said they could attempt to do so, but argued that the res judicata principle would stand in the way of such cases.

“Of course, if they wanted to bring, to me it’s speculative. They could, but of course, we are going to stand behind to object to it, because the reason as I mentioned just now is actually res judicata. We are going to say it is res judicata and therefore they cannot go any further,” he said.

When commenting on the effect of the Federal Court’s majority ruling today, Wong said it means the Court of Appeal’s decision — which recognised the use of Chinese and Tamil languages in vernacular schools or national-type schools as legal — remains valid.

“The resulting decision is that the use of Chinese and Tamil in teaching and learning in SJKC and SJKT is not unconstitutional, it is actually within the right and protected and preserved by Article 152 of the Federal Constitution. So, we are very happy today that the teaching and use of Chinese and Tamil can continue formally in our education system,” he said, referring to the Malay acronyms of national-type Chinese primary schools (SJKC) and of national-type Tamil primary schools (SJKT).

Currently, Wong said there are 1,302 SJKCs and 527 SJKTs in Malaysia.

He said there are now about 20 per cent of students in SJKCs who are non-Chinese, with this group comprising Malays and Indians, among others.

Jiao Zong chairman Cheah Lek Aee told Malay Mail that the SJKCs nationwide have roughly an estimated 500,000 students and that this would mean that a rough estimate of 100,000 students are non-Chinese.

Traditionally, students at SJKCs and SJKTs are mainly from ethnic Chinese and ethnic Indian communities.

But in a July 5, 2023 press statement on its website, Dong Zong had said there has been an increase in the percentage of non-Chinese students out of the entire student population at SJKC over the years.

Based on data from Dong Zong for 17 of the years from 1989 to 2020, there were initially 17,309 students or 3.05 per cent of total SJKC students in 1989 who were non-Chinese.

Over the years, the non-Chinese students at SJKC increased to 32,203 or 5.52 per cent (1994), 52,043 or 8.66 per cent (1998), estimates of 65,000 or 10.66 per cent (1999), an estimated 71,644 or 12 per cent (2011), 80,024 or 13.32 per cent (2012), 87,463 or 15.31 per cent (2014), estimated 94,608 or 18 per cent (2017), and an estimated 101,011 or 19.75 per cent (2020).

Read here for Malay Mail ’s simplified summary of the Court of Appeal’s 41-page judgment on the matter of vernacular schools.

Out of the four NGOs who had failed to challenge vernacular schools’ constitutionality at both the High Court and Court of Appeal, only two had filed applications for leave to appeal at the Federal Court, namely Mappim and Gapena. The remaining two NGOs, Ikatan Muslimin Malaysia (Isma) and Ikatan Guru-Guru Muslim Malaysia (i-Guru), did not attempt to pursue an appeal at the Federal Court.

Malay Mail

  • Today's news
  • Reviews and deals
  • Climate change
  • 2024 election
  • My portfolio
  • My watchlist
  • Stock market
  • Biden economy
  • Personal finance
  • Stocks: most actives
  • Stocks: gainers
  • Stocks: losers
  • Trending tickers
  • World indices
  • US Treasury bonds
  • Top mutual funds
  • Highest open interest
  • Highest implied volatility
  • Currency converter
  • Basic materials
  • Communication services
  • Consumer cyclical
  • Consumer defensive
  • Financial services
  • Industrials
  • Real estate
  • Mutual funds
  • Credit card rates
  • Balance transfer credit cards
  • Business credit cards
  • Cash back credit cards
  • Rewards credit cards
  • Travel credit cards
  • Checking accounts
  • Online checking accounts
  • High-yield savings accounts
  • Money market accounts
  • Personal loans
  • Student loans
  • Car insurance
  • Home buying
  • Options pit
  • Investment ideas
  • Research reports
  • Fantasy football
  • Pro Pick 'Em
  • College Pick 'Em
  • Fantasy baseball
  • Fantasy hockey
  • Fantasy basketball
  • Download the app
  • Daily Fantasy
  • Scores and schedules
  • GameChannel
  • World Baseball Classic
  • Premier League
  • CONCACAF League
  • Champions League
  • College football
  • Motorsports
  • Horse racing
  • Newsletters

Entertainment

  • How to watch
  • Fall allergies
  • Health news
  • Mental health
  • Sexual health
  • Family health
  • So mini ways
  • Style and beauty
  • Unapologetically
  • Buying guides

New on Yahoo

  • Privacy Dashboard

15 men brought to military enlistment office after mass brawl in Moscow Oblast

Local security forces brought 15 men to a military enlistment office after a mass brawl at a warehouse of the Russian Wildberries company in Elektrostal, Moscow Oblast on Feb. 8, Russian Telegram channel Shot reported .

29 people were also taken to police stations. Among the arrested were citizens of Kyrgyzstan.

A mass brawl involving over 100 employees and security personnel broke out at the Wildberries warehouse in Elektrostal on Dec. 8.

Read also: Moscow recruits ‘construction brigades’ from Russian students, Ukraine says

We’re bringing the voice of Ukraine to the world. Support us with a one-time donation, or become a Patron !

Read the original article on The New Voice of Ukraine

Recommended Stories

Will i be taxed on student loan forgiveness.

Some forms of student loan forgiveness are taxable. If you aren't prepared, the taxes on student loan forgiveness can be significant.

Amazon's No. 1 bestselling, slim men's wallet has over 39,000 five-star ratings and is down to just $8

Super-sleek and secure, this winner comes in 25 colors and has RFID-blocking tech.

AT&T says 75% of network is restored after thousands report nationwide cell service outage

The widespread outage sparked confusion for some users who reported their phone was stuck in SOS mode.

Moderna CEO: 2024 is year of growth, with 2023 transition in rearview

Moderna posted strong results despite investors assuming a loss for the year.

NCAAF players can opt in to EA Sports College Football 25, get paid for first time

All 134 FBS programs have agreed to participate in the game.

How to watch the U.S. moon landing of the Odysseus today live

A robotic lunar lander launched by a private U.S. company is scheduled to reach the moon at 5:30 p.m. ET.

Novavax resolves Gavi dispute over COVID-19 vaccines

Novavax has resolved a potentially expensive battle with Gavi, opening up a pathway for the company to get out of the red.

Nvidia stock surges after earnings beat estimates across the board

Nvidia shares surged after the chipmaker's better-than-anticipated earnings report, as its CEO said generative AI has hit a "tipping point."

Nvidia earnings: Wall Street grows more bullish on the 'AI ecosystem of choice'

Wall Street analysts cheered Nvidia's blowout earnings report with the median price target for the stock rising 19%.

Former Barcelona player Dani Alves sentenced to prison for sexual assault

Dani Alves was sentenced to four years and six months in prison for the Dec. 2022 assault.

'Little soundbar, big sound': This top-rated gem is down to $33 — save over 65%

Whether you struggle with hard-to-hear dialogue or want more room-filling audio, here's your fix — and it's on mega-sale.

Golden Ventures secures another $100M to invest in Canada’s tech ecosystem

Golden Ventures, a Canada-based venture capital firm, closed on over $100 million in capital commitments for its fifth fund targeting high-potential, seed-stage founders working across technologies, including AI, climate, blockchain and quantum. Matt Golden, founder and managing partner, started the Toronto-based firm in 2011 and amassed a team, including Ameet Shah, general partner, and new principal Nick Chen. “This is a continuation of our core thesis and created to be super founder-aligned,” Golden told TechCrunch.

Google pauses AI tool Gemini's ability to generate images of people after historical inaccuracies

Google says it's temporarily suspended the ability of Gemini, its flagship generative AI suite of models, to generate images of people while it works on updating the technology to improve the historical accuracy of outputs involving depictions of humans. In a post on the social media platform X, the company announced what it couched as a "pause" on generating images of people -- writing that it's working to address "recent issues" related to historical inaccuracies. "While we do this, we're going to pause the image generation of people and will re-release an improved version soon," it added.

Nvidia is now reporting a full year of results in a single quarter: Morning Brief

Nvidia's eye-watering fourth quarter numbers show just how far the business has come in just over a year.

Zūm Rails takes in first capital to launch new banking-as-a-service, FedNow offerings

The adoption of open banking and instant payments is moving slowly in the United States compared to other markets around the world, for example, Brazil. Until then, the co-founders of Zūm Rails say the experiences consumers have with payments continues to be fragmented, meaning companies have to create a tech stack to provide a wide range of services to their customers. The Montreal-based company is taking the approach of providing an all-in-one payments gateway that merges open banking with instant payments.

Uber to explore travel ticketing with India's open commerce network

Uber has signed a memorandum of understanding with an Indian government-backed firm that aims to make mobility and commerce more accessible across the South Asian nation. The ride-hailing giant said Thursday that it will explore an integration with Open Network for Digital Commerce (ONDC) to explore integrations with the network and expand range of its mobility offerings on the Uber app. At an event in Bengaluru, Uber chief executive Dara Khosrowshahi said Uber "views open source tech stacks with a lot of interest and recognizes the opportunities they bring for everyone."

Microsoft's upcoming custom chip will be made by Intel

Intel will be manufacturing Microsoft's next custom chip using its 18A node process.

People can't look away from TikTok's ‘Who TF Did I Marry?’ How the story of woman's 'pathological liar' husband became the latest viral sensation.

A woman uploaded 52 videos outlining her marriage to a "pathological liar." How did she capture the attention span of millions of TikTok viewers? And why did some of them decide to get involved?

How family has been the driving force of Alissa Pili’s evolution into a star

The Utah senior standout has put the college basketball world on notice, thanks to the lessons and support of those closest to her.

FTC concludes Twitter didn’t violate data security rules, in spite of Musk's orders

The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) concluded Elon Musk ordered Twitter employees to take actions that would have violated a 2022 FTC consent decree regarding consumers’ data privacy and security.

19th Edition of Global Conference on Catalysis, Chemical Engineering & Technology

  • Victor Mukhin

Victor Mukhin, Speaker at Chemical Engineering Conferences

Victor M. Mukhin was born in 1946 in the town of Orsk, Russia. In 1970 he graduated the Technological Institute in Leningrad. Victor M. Mukhin was directed to work to the scientific-industrial organization "Neorganika" (Elektrostal, Moscow region) where he is working during 47 years, at present as the head of the laboratory of carbon sorbents.     Victor M. Mukhin defended a Ph. D. thesis and a doctoral thesis at the Mendeleev University of Chemical Technology of Russia (in 1979 and 1997 accordingly). Professor of Mendeleev University of Chemical Technology of Russia. Scientific interests: production, investigation and application of active carbons, technological and ecological carbon-adsorptive processes, environmental protection, production of ecologically clean food.   

Title : Active carbons as nanoporous materials for solving of environmental problems

Quick links.

  • Conference Brochure
  • Tentative Program

Watsapp

IMAGES

  1. What is Res Judicata?

    the res judicata

  2. Spencer Bower and Handley: Res Judicata Fifth edition

    the res judicata

  3. RES JUDICATA

    the res judicata

  4. PPT

    the res judicata

  5. CAP

    the res judicata

  6. Res judicata (Sec 47, Rule 39)

    the res judicata

VIDEO

  1. CPC Res judicata lecture 2

  2. Cpc Res judicata lecture 4

  3. Res Judicata 100195

  4. Definition of RES JUDICATA

  5. Res Sub Judice & Res Judicata #stay #bar #difference

  6. Differrnce between Res Judicata and Estoppel (point wise)

COMMENTS

  1. res judicata

    Res judicata translates to "a matter judged." Overview Generally, res judicata is the principle that a cause of action may not be relitigated once it has been judged on the merits. "Finality" is the term which refers to when a court renders a final judgment on the merits.

  2. Res judicata

    Res judicata or res iudicata, also known as claim preclusion, is the Latin term for judged matter [1] and refers to either of two concepts in common law civil procedure: a case in which there has been a final judgment and that is no longer subject to appeal; and the legal doctrine meant to bar (or preclude) relitigation of a claim between the sa...

  3. Res Judicata

    Noun A case that has been decided by a court of competent jurisdiction, and not subject to re- litigation by the same parties. Origin 1684-1695 Latin (a thing adjudicated; a judged matter) What is the Doctrine of Res Judicata

  4. Res judicata Definition & Meaning

    res judicata noun res ju· di· ca· ta ˈrēz-ˌjü-di-ˈkä-tə : a matter finally decided on its merits by a court having competent jurisdiction and not subject to litigation again between the same parties Examples of res judicata in a Sentence

  5. What is res judicata?

    Res judicata has three general elements: re-litigation, same cause of action, and same or closely related parties. Re-litigation Res judicata prevents a party from bringing a claim once that particular claim has been subjected to a final judgment in some previous lawsuit.

  6. Litigation, Overview

    Res Judicata Final judgments are supposed to be final. Both courts and litigants deserve peace once a claim is fully adjudicated. The doctrine of res judicata, Latin for "a thing adjudged," bars parties from re-litigating any claims a competent court has already decided.

  7. Res judicata

    res judicata, (Latin: "a thing adjudged"), a thing or matter that has been finally juridically decided on its merits and cannot be litigated again between the same parties. The term is often used in reference to the maxim that repeated reexamination of adjudicated disputes is not in any society's interest.

  8. What are the Elements of Res Judicata (Claim Preclusion)?

    The doctrine of res judicata, also known as "claim preclusion," prevents a party from re-litigating a claim once a court has issued a final judgment on that claim. A closely related issue, " collateral estoppel" or "issue preclusion," prevents someone from re-litigating a particular issue once a court has ruled on it.

  9. RES JUDICATA

    of law; but res judicata is not so yielding-it binds alike both courts and litigants.0 As a plea, a former adjudication is a bar to subsequent suits for the same cause; as evidence, it is conclusive of the facts therein established.7 Speaking broadly, the rule of res judicata means that when

  10. Res Judicata

    Res Judicata Also known in the US as claim preclusion. A Latin term meaning "a matter judged". This doctrine prevents a party from re-litigating any claim or defence (or issue) already litigated.

  11. Legal Definitions of Res Judicata And Collateral Estoppel

    Under res judicata, a final judgment on the merits of an action precludes the parties or their privies from relitigating issues that were or could have been raised in that action. Under collateral estoppel, once a court has decided an issue of fact or law necessary to its judgment, that decision may preclude relitigation of the issue in a suit ...

  12. Res Judicata

    The problem whether res judicata only applies to the adjudication of the prior petitum (request) as in civil-law doctrine 41 or to the entire reasoning as at common law, is a classic of international res judicata. 42 The doctrine of 'issue preclusion', 'issue estoppel' or 'collateral estoppel' (the terms are used interchangeably in ...

  13. Res Judicata: Understanding Claim Preclusion under the Law

    Res judicata is a common law doctrine (created by judges through written opinions) that bars parties who have received a final judgment on a claim's merits from litigating that cause of action again. But res judicata goes further; it bars the litigation of causes of action that you could have brought in the first case.

  14. Doctrine of Res Judicata

    Introduction Brief history and origin of Res Judicata Res Judicata meaning Res Judicata example Principle of Res Judicata Pre-requisites for Res Judicata Nature and Scope of Res Judicata Rationale Failure to Apply Doctrine of Res Judicata Res judicata under CPC Directly and substantially in issue Decision on merits Constructive Res Judicata

  15. SSA

    Administrative res judicata is a rule in civil law and an administrative policy. We apply it at all levels of the claims process to avoid deciding an issue that we have previously decided based on the same facts, same issues, same parties, and same adjudicative period. •

  16. res-judicata

    Explanation of the Constitution - from the Congressional Research Service.

  17. Texas Courts and The Doctrine of Res Judicata

    Freeman Law. (214) 984-3000. [email protected]. Freeman Law is a tax, white-collar, and litigation boutique law firm. We offer unique and valued counsel, insight, and experience. Our firm is where clients turn when the stakes are high and the issues are complex. The doctrine of res judicata, or claim preclusion, bars a second action by ...

  18. What is the Difference Between Collateral Estoppel and Res Judicata

    Collateral estoppel and res judicata are similar affirmative defenses to legal claims for relief. Each depends on a prior final judgment. But there are important differences. Collateral estoppel The doctrine of collateral estoppel holds that an issue that has been litigated cannot be litigated again. For collateral estoppel to apply, the following requirements must be […]

  19. Res Judicata under Civil Procedure Code, 1908

    The doctrine of Res Judicata is originated from 3 Roman maxims: Nemo debet lis vaxari pro eadem causa - It means that no person should be vexed annoyed, harassed or vexed two times for the same cause; Interest republicae ut sit finis litium - It means that it is in the interest of the state that there should be an end of litigation; and

  20. Res Judicata in Criminal Procedure

    Res Judicata in criminal procedure, which prescribes respect for the legal force of judicial acts adopted in civil proceedings, ensures not only the right to judicial protection and the principle of legal certainty, but also the impossibility of resolving civil disputes about the law within the framework of criminal proceedings. As a result, the scale of the impact of the court decision on the ...

  21. PDF [DO NOT PUBLISH] In the United States Court of Appeals

    Res judicata prevents parties from relitigating issues already decided by a competent court. Cmty. State Bank v. Strong, 651 F.3d 1241, 1263 (11th Cir. 2011). "In considering whether to give pre-clusive effect to state-court judgments under res judicata . . . the federal court must apply the rendering state's law of preclusion." Id.

  22. No new lawsuits against vernacular schools can be filed on same ...

    "Res judicata means a court has decided on the same provisions of laws, so there shouldn't be another case, another party bringing the same matter to the court for any further litigation. So ...

  23. PDF Seltz, Carl RES JUDICATA

    therefore res judicata that claimant is not entitled to time loss compensation for the period of May 17, 1986 through October 15, 1986, and that issue cannot be relitigated in this appeal. 2. The Department order of May 9, 1988 was a purely ministerial act by the Department, complying with the Board final order of April 7, 1988. No

  24. 'Lacuna matata': should we worry about a gap in B.C.'s domestic

    On July 30, 2023, the arbitrator dismissed the arbitration proceeding on the basis that it was barred by the doctrine of res judicata. He indicated that the claims that Mr. Bollhorn now pursued in arbitration had previously been put forward by Mr. Bollhorn in the notice of civil claim in the 2022 British Columbia Supreme Court proceeding.

  25. 15 men brought to military enlistment office after mass brawl in Moscow

    Local security forces brought 15 men to a military enlistment office after a mass brawl at a warehouse of the Russian Wildberries company in Elektrostal, Moscow Oblast on Feb. 8, Russian Telegram channel Shot reported.. 29 people were also taken to police stations. Among the arrested were citizens of Kyrgyzstan. A mass brawl involving over 100 employees and security personnel broke out at the ...

  26. PDF Tentative Rulings for February 21, 2024 Department 403 desires a remote

    the action will be res judicata." (Nicodemus v. Saint Francis Memorial Hospital (2016) 3 Cal.App.5th 1200, 1212, internal citations and quote marks omitted.) Plaintiffs bear the burden of establishing the propriety of class treatment with admissible evidence. (Richmond v. Dart Industries, Inc. (1981) 29 Cal.3d 462, 470.) Plaintiffs

  27. Moscow

    Moscow, city, capital of Russia, located in the far western part of the country.Since it was first mentioned in the chronicles of 1147, Moscow has played a vital role in Russian history. It became the capital of Muscovy (the Grand Principality of Moscow) in the late 13th century; hence, the people of Moscow are known as Muscovites.Today Moscow is not only the political centre of Russia but ...

  28. Victor Mukhin

    Catalysis Conference is a networking event covering all topics in catalysis, chemistry, chemical engineering and technology during October 19-21, 2017 in Las Vegas, USA. Well noted as well attended meeting among all other annual catalysis conferences 2018, chemical engineering conferences 2018 and chemistry webinars.

  29. BETA GIDA, OOO Company Profile

    Find company research, competitor information, contact details & financial data for BETA GIDA, OOO of Elektrostal, Moscow region. Get the latest business insights from Dun & Bradstreet.