Estoppel Case Study

In the law of evidence, the two types of estoppels are cause of action estoppel and issue estoppel, which are both estoppel by record. The aim developing estoppels is to avoid the abuse of process and protect the parties from the harassment by different proceedings on the same incident. Requirements have to be fulfilled for the application and they are slightly different between civil and criminal proceedings. Although the estoppels have its advantages, the criticism never stops.

In DSV Silo-und Verwaltungsgesellschaft mbH v Owners of The Sennar [1985], Lord Brandon set out the requirements in order to apply the estoppels.

The first requirement is the parties or the privies sued in the later proceedings must be the same parties in the earlier

This amounts to the abuse of the process. However in Brunsden v Humphrey (1884), the court agreed that different cause of action aroused even in the same incident on recovering damages of property and personal injury so the claimant was entitled with damages.

There are two views in issue estoppel. The narrow view is set out in Randolph v Tuck [1962], considering different issues in this case in the matter of law. Therefore the defendant was not estopped to deny his responsibility. However, Popplewell J in Wall v Radford [1991] took a broad view. He thought that the duty to passengers compare to other road users in law is technically different whereas they are the same as a matter of fact. Nevertheless, narrow view prevails in the

Privies refers to people has relation in blood, title or interest. However “interest” is hardly to define. The law only uses the narrow sense on interest that the defendant should not be harassed twice. It excluded the other possibilities of “interested parties” and makes the rule rigid.

Secondly, it was mentioned in Brunsden case that the requirements of “once and for all” may be sometimes extremely rigid and not fair to the claimant in personal injury cases, which the damage may not be revealed immediately.

Thirdly, the likelihood of acquittal in these cases may increase. In R v Z [2000], the court applied the doctrine and rejected to regard the three acquittals as similar facts evidence due to the use of narrow view. Other than looking at three times acquittals, the court should also look at the reason of the acquittal to determine whether it should be considered as similar facts evidence.

Moreover, there are so many views and different judgments from the judges. It’s hard to find a universal standard to apply the doctrine, even though it depends on individual cases.

In conclude, the doctrine of res judicata should be applied more flexibly to achieve greater justice not only to protect the accused interest, but also protect the rights of the