Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

and "cause of action estoppel". The relevant passages from the aforesaid judgement dealing with the proposition make for profitable and delightful reading. The relevant passages are extracted hereinbelow;
‚135. The 'Henderson Principle' is a foundational doctrine in common law that addresses the issue of multiplicity in (2010) 2 SCC 114 (1990) 2 SCR 493) (2013) 2 SCC 398 (2012) 10 SCR 603 (2011) 7 SCC 69 2024 SCC Online SC 3727 Designation: AR-CUM- SR. SECRETARY Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 28-Feb-2025 18:04:39 litigation. It embodies the broader concept of procedural fairness, abuse of process and judicial efficiency by mandating that all claims and issues that could and ought to have been raised in a previous litigation should not be relitigated in subsequent proceedings. The extended form of res-
In one respect, however, the principle goes further than the strict doctrine of res judicata or the formulation adopted by Sir James Wigram V-C, for I agree that it is capable of applying even where the first action concluded in a settlement. Here it is necessary to protect the integrity of the settlement and to prevent the defendant from being misled into believing that he was achieving a complete settlement of the matter in dispute when an unsuspected part remained outstanding.
However this may be, the difference to which I have drawn attention is of critical importance. It is one thing to refuse to allow a party to relitigate a question which has already been decided; it is quite another to Designation: AR-CUM- SR. SECRETARY Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 28-Feb-2025 18:04:39 deny him the opportunity of litigating for the first time a question which has not previously been adjudicated upon. This latter (though not the former) is prima facie a denial of the citizen's right of access to the court conferred by the common law and guaranteed by article 6 < While, therefore, the doctrine of res judicata in all its branches may properly be regarded as a rule of substantive law, applicable in all save exceptional circumstances, the doctrine now under consideration can be no more than a procedural rule based on the need to protect the process of the court from abuse and the defendant from oppression *<+‛' (Emphasis supplied)

145. There are, four situations where in second proceedings between the same parties doctrine res judicata as a corollary of the principle of abuse of process may be invoked : (i) cause of action estoppel, where the entirety of a decided cause of action is sought to be relitigated; (ii) issue estoppel or, ‚decided issue estoppel,‛ where an issue is sought to be relitigated which has been raised and decided as a fundamental step in arriving at the earlier judicial decision; (iii) extended or constructive res judicata i.e., ‚unraised issue estoppel,‛ where an issue is sought to be litigated which could, and should, have been raised in a previous action but was not raised; (iv) a further extension of the aforesaid to points not raised in relation to an issue in the earlier decision, as opposed to issues not raised in relation to the decision itself.

Designation: AR-CUM- SR. SECRETARY Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 28-Feb-2025 18:04:39

149. Piecemeal litigation where issues are deliberately fragmented across separate proceedings to gain an unfair advantage is in itself a facet of abuse of process of law and would also fall foul of this principle. Merely because one proceeding initiated by a party differs in some aspects from another proceeding or happens to be before a different forum, will not make the subsequent proceeding distinct in nature from the former, if the underlying subject matter or the seminal issues involved remains substantially similar to each other or connected to the earlier subject matter by a certain degree, then such proceeding would tantamount to 'relitigating' and the Henderson Principle would be applicable.