.png){kind=logo}
As humans, letting go of something or someone, that was once important can be difficult. Now, although courts in general, have never met that special plaintiff, nor that notable defendant, Courts are very much like us in the sense that they seek some form of closure or finality before moving on.
This is commonly known as Res Judicata.
What is Res Judicata
Res Judicata, also known as claim preclusion, means that a particular legal matter cannot be raised again.
As the term embodies the principle of finality, an essential aspect of adjudication, and contributes to the rule of law, Res Judicata is a decision pronounced by a court with jurisdiction over the cause of action and the parties, which disposes the matter (disputed legal issue) once and for all after being decided once and after its appeal. A matter deemed res judicata means that they cannot be relitigated between persons.
In Charm Maritime Inc v Kyriakou [1987] Llyod’s Rep 433, the doctrine of res judicata reflects the court’s attempt to conclude a particular legal action whilst upholding the public interest by ensuring that there is a limit when bringing an action to court as well as the private interest by protecting parties from being harassed by repeated suits and prosecution for the same cause.
When will Res Judicata be declared?
In applying the doctrine of res judicata, a legal issue must have surfaced during the start of legal proceedings, and then raised by either party again.
This means that, despite already receiving judgement by the court, a party tried to argue on that specific issue again. This will not be allowed by the Court as it would be deemed unjust to hear the same issue all over again.
It is important to note that a case will not be reopened for further arguments when a matter has been declared Res Judicata.
Notwithstanding the merits of a given case, once a legal dispute has been determined by the court, parties are generally halted to continue their legal actions.
In the context of appeal cases, Res Judicata could also happen either because no appeal was taken to a higher court, or because the appeal was dismissed.
Case Law on Res Judicata
In Syarikat Sebati Sdn Bhd v Pengarah Jabatan Perhutanan & Anor [2019] 3 CLJ 157, the plaintiff argued that, the issue of whether there was in existence a valid and binding contract had already been determined by the learned Judicial Commissioner in Civil Suit 136 who found that the letter of approval and the draft agreement constituted a valid and binding logging contract between the parties.
The court held that, since there was no appeal specifically against this finding by the defendant. The decision of the learned Judicial Commissioner on that issue had become res judicata.
Nature of Res Judicata
The doctrine of res judicata is not a mandatory statutory provision intended by Parliament to be applicable in all circumstances. Instead, Res judicata is based on case law and should not be applied indiscriminately so as to cause injustice.
Consider the following 2 Court of Appeal cases:
In Chee Pok Choy & Ors v Scotch Leasing Sdn Bhd [2001] 4 MLJ 346, at 356, 357 and 358, Justice Gopal Sri Ram JCA stated:
“Since the doctrine (whether in its narrow or broader sense) is designed to achieve justice, a court may decline to apply it where to do so would lead to an unjust result. And there is a respectable authority in support of the view that I have just expressed.“
He then continued,
“…res judicata is not merely a technical rule of pleading. It is a doctrine of substantial justice. It is a process whereby justice is achieved procedurally by precluding a party from re-agitating in subsequent proceedings a complaint or an issue that has, or could fairly have, been disposed in earlier proceedings between the same parties or their privies. It is merely equity in action in the procedural arena.”
In Francis Joseph Puthucheary v Eng Securities Sdn Bhd [2015] 4 CLJ 433, the court was of the opinion that the present case would neatly come within the Scotch Leasing ‘s dimension that the application of the doctrine of res judicata would lead to an unjust result.
Idrus Harun JCA then stressed on the need to be mindful of the fact that whether res judicata should be permitted to bar a claim from being relitigated in a subsequent action, is a matter that is to be determined on the facts of each case, always having regard to where the justice of the individual and particular case lies.
Comentarios