The claimant sought a declaration as to the ownership of an aircraft. Saying he had bought it in good faith from E H and S, who in turn similarly claimed to have bought it from Ebbs. The defendant had obtained a judgment that he was owner as against Mr Ebbs after the sale to E H and S, but before the sale to the claimant.
Held: Since the issue of ownership had been determined before his purchase and against one through whom he claimed to derive title, the claim failed. The doctrine of privity applies in the same manner to a judgment determining the ownership of goods as it does to one determining the ownership of land.
Latham LJ expressed his conclusion: ‘where title to goods is in dispute . . a person claiming title is privy to the interests of those through whom he claims that title for the purposes of the operation of the doctrine of estoppel per rem judicatam but only if the title he claims was acquired after the date of the judgment.’
Arden LJ said ‘Res judicata promotes the important public policy of finality in legal proceedings and thus legal certainty . . If there was no estoppel per rem judicatam in this situation the result would always be that a defendant to an action about the ownership of property could always avoid the result of an adverse judgment by disposing of the property before the judgment was enforced. That would clearly be an intolerable state of affair . . ‘
Holman J said: ‘If after A has obtained a final judgment establishing that a chattel belongs to A rather than B, A wishes to sell it, it is essential that a purchaser can rely on the judgment as against B for otherwise A cannot really benefit from his judgment. Any alternative view would lead to uncertainty and commercial chaos.’
Judges:
Lord Justice Latham Lady Justice Arden Mr Justice Holman
Citations:
[2004] EWCA Civ 534, Times 03-Jun-2004, [2004] 3 All ER 235, [2004] 3 WLR 666, [2005] QB 117
Links:
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Citing:
See also – Wiltshire v Powell and others (Costs) CA 7-May-2004
. .
Cited – Gleeson v J Wippell and Co Ltd ChD 1977
The court considered the circumstances giving rise to a plea of res judicata, and proposed a test of privity in cases which did not fall into any recognised category. ‘Second, it seems to me that the sub-stratum of the doctrine is that a man ought . .
Cited – Johnson v Gore Wood and Co HL 14-Dec-2000
Shareholder May Sue for Additional Personal Losses
A company brought a claim of negligence against its solicitors, and, after that claim was settled, the company’s owner brought a separate claim in respect of the same subject-matter.
Held: It need not be an abuse of the court for a shareholder . .
Cited – Doe v The Earl of Derby 1834
For a plea of res judicata to arise as between claimants to the title to goods, the same title must have come into question in both actions, because there must be an identity of interest between the party to the first action and the party to the . .
Cited – Wytcherley v Andrews 1871
Lord Penzance said: ‘There is a practice in this court, by which any person having an interest may make himself a party to the suit by intervening; and it was because of the existence of that practice that the judges of the Prerogative Court held, . .
Cited – Carl Zeiss Stiftung v Rayner and Keeler Ltd (No 2) HL 1966
An agency had to be proved in a search to identify an entity which the law recognised (a) existed and (b) was legally responsible for the acts in issue in the proceedings. The House was asked whether the fact that an issue had already been . .
Cited – Westland Helicopters Ltd v Sheikh Al-Hejailan QBD 13-Jul-2004
. .
Cited – Hodson v Walker CEC 1872
Premises known as the Red Lion Inn, Grasmere and certain outbuildings were let. In February 1852, Walker allowed one Usher, who owned the Red Lion Inn, to build a shed on his (Walker’s) adjoining land in return for a rent of 1s. a year. In November . .
Cited – House of Spring Gardens v Waite CA 1991
The principle of abuse of process is capable of applying where the relevant earlier proceedings have taken place before a foreign court (Ireland). In this case the defendants argued that the judgment obtained in Ireland had been obtained . .
Cited – Pople v Evans ChD 1969
The court discussed the doctrine of res judicata: ‘ . . the title relied on to establish such privity must arise after the judgment on which the res judicata is based, or at any rate after the commencement of the proceedings in which that judgment . .
Cited – Mercantile Investment and General Trust Company v River Plate Trust, Loan and Agency Company 1894
Romer J said: ‘A prior purchaser of land cannot be estopped as being privy in estate by a judgment obtained in an action against the vendor commenced after purchase.’ . .
Cited – Re de Burgho’s Estate 1896
The court considered the necessary elements of issue estoppel: ‘According to the clear principles of the law of estoppel, it is necessary, in order to estop the objector, to show that he derives title under Dwyer by act or operation of law . .
Cited – Nana Ofori Atta (II) v Nana Abu Bonsra (II) PC 1958
(West Africa) Care must be taken in respect of the notion that merely standing by and waiting to see the outcome of a case in which the non-party has an interest, without more, involves an abuse of process. The parties now disputed title to land, . .
Cited – Brotherton and others v Aseguradora Colseguros S A and Another ComC 26-Feb-2003
. .
Cited – Hornsby v Greece ECHR 19-Mar-1997
Hudoc Violation of Art. 6-1; Preliminary objection rejected; Just satisfaction reserved – Judgment (Just satisfaction) Pecuniary damage – financial award; Non-pecuniary damage – financial award
The rights . .
Cited – Wenman v McKenzie 1855
Coleridge J, quoting Lord Chief Baron Gilbert: ‘nobody can take benefit by a verdict that had not been prejudiced by it, had it gone contrary’. . .
Cited by:
See also – Wiltshire v Powell and others (Costs) CA 7-May-2004
. .
Cited – Michael Wilson and Partners Ltd v Sinclair and Others ComC 21-Sep-2012
The claimant company alleged that the defendants had variously received assests (shares and cash) acquired by a former partner in the claimant company and held on his behalf, in breach of his obligations to the caimant partnership. The defendants . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Contract, Litigation Practice
Updated: 10 June 2022; Ref: scu.196776
