Site icon swarb.co.uk

Hoystead v Commissioner of Taxation: PC 1926

Lord Shaw: ‘In the opinion of their Lordships it is settled, first, that the admission of a fact fundamental to the decision arrived at cannot be withdrawn and a fresh litigation started, with a view of obtaining another judgment upon a different assumption of fact; secondly, the same principle applies not only to an erroneous admission of a fundamental fact, but to an erroneous assumption as to the legal quality of that fact. Parties are not permitted to begin fresh litigations because of new views they may entertain of the law of the case, or new versions which they present as to what should be a proper apprehension by the Court of the legal result either of the construction of the documents or the weight of certain circumstances. If this were permitted litigation would have no end, except when legal ingenuity is exhausted.’

Judges:

Lord Shaw of Dunfermline

Citations:

[1926] AC 155, [1925] All ER 56, (1926) 42 TLR 207, 67 ER 313

Jurisdiction:

Commonwealth

Citing:

Appeal fromHoysted v Federal Commissioner of Taxation 16-Dec-1921
High Court of Australia – Higgins J coined the term ‘issue estoppel’. . .

Cited by:

CitedMeretz Investments Nv and Another v ACP Ltd and others ChD 30-Jan-2006
The applicant challenged the exercise of a power of sale under a mortgage, saying that the mortgagee’s purposes included purposes not those under the mortgage. The parties had been involved in an attempted development of a penthouse.
Held: The . .
CitedBarrett v Universal-Island Records Ltd and others ChD 15-May-2006
The claimant was entitled to share in the copyright royalties of Bob Marley and the Wailers, and claimed payment from the defendants. The defendants said that the matters had already been settled and that the claim was an abuse of process, and also . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Estoppel, Litigation Practice

Updated: 01 May 2022; Ref: scu.241331

Exit mobile version